In remarks at a judicial conference, Roberts bemoaned what he characterized as the American public’s misconceptions about the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday defended the Supreme Court from what he believes are misconceptions held by the American people that he and his colleagues are “political actors” who are making decisions based on policy, not law.
Roberts is a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which has moved federal law to the right on a number of weighty issues in recent years, such as abortion and gun rights.
The court has also in several cases weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, including in a ruling last week that led to outrage and disappointment on the left.
Being the leader of the highest tier of the government’s judiciary branch makes everything you do or say political, Johnny-Boy.
Is anyone else getting mighty tired of that “I don’t do politics” shtick in general? I know I am. Even more so in a time where literal nazis are using it to cover up their ideological praxis.
I wonder if he genuinely thinks this. Surely he’d have to if he bothered to say so. I can’t imagine a cynical political actor would waste his energy explaining himself to a public that he isn’t accountable to. Thomas and Alito for instance don’t really say jack shit, because they don’t care what you think.
Roberts belief that he can salvage the courts reputation is deeply pathetic. He wiped his ass with the law and made the supremes courts corruption even more brazen.
It’s true that they’re not political actors. They’re political whores. And they’re not even high-priced whores.
No, I don’t think they’re fucking actors. Obviously I’m upset because the jobs are real, you dumb stupid fuck. But I’d gladly take Martin Sheen over you, sure. Good idea.
I’m upset that I view Roberts as a dude who doesn’t have my balls on his chin.
You want that?
Please elaborate.
To paraphrase the philosopher Lynn strait, " my balls is chin."
It’s not political obviously. He is the ultimate harbinger of truth and were just not listening!
Fucking liar, Roberts is.
Can someone please remind me who sold out the country to corporate interests and allowed super PACs to exist? Oh yeah, thank Chief Justice Roberts. Go fuck yourself.
chimp justice rawbutts wrongly reads the american people as stupid
I used to think that we had to add another 4 seats to the SCOTUS, but I no longer believe that. Now I think we need to add 20 seats to the Supreme Court.
We have allowed SCOTUS to remain so small so that one bad-faith president can negatively alter the course of the nation for half a century. We should increase it to 29 or 31, with rolling term limits, so every president gets to appoint a handful, but never enough to throw off the balance to any great degree.
Don’t assign a set number of seats. Whenever a justice dies, their seat dies with them.
Add one justice every two years, at the end of the first and third year of the presidential term. Every president gets to add exactly two justices per term. This timing pushes the decision as far away from an election as possible.
To further depoliticize the process, I would formally establish a “line of succession” for the court. This line would start with the chief judges of each of the 13 circuit appeals courts, then continue with every other judge in the appeals courts, in order of seniority.
Everyone in the line of succession has been previously confirmed by the Senate to their appellate court seats. To limit the games the Senate can play, I would not require an additional Senate confirmation if the candidate is one of the first 26 in the line of succession. The president can unilaterally elevate any of those 26 to SCOTUS (but, these are the oldest candidates available. They are at the pinnacle of their careers; they can be expected to serve terms measured in months, not decades. The president is not going to want to name one of these geriatrics.)
If a new justice hasn’t been added by the 18th/30th month of the president’s term, the next in the line of succession is permanently elevated to SCOTUS. This deadline keeps the appointment process at least 6 months away from an election.
The “line of succession” also suggests a way for the court to be apolitically reconstituted in case of a disaster. If the court falls below 5 members, the next in the line is automatically elevated.
Further, it provides a means for a case to be heard even if all sitting justices are conflicted and compelled to recuse themselves. If fewer than 5 members of the court are eligible to hear a particular case, the next in the line of succession is temporarily elevated for that case. In a case where SCOTUS ethics rules are under scrutiny, the case may be heard entirely by temporary members.
I think that expanding the court should work a certain way, but to preface: I am assuming that the US is broken into four major cooperative territories, each with a president, with their own regional courts and executives. However, there would also be a figurehead president elected by the regional presidents, whose vote is confirmed by their regional voters. The figurehead represents national policy and acts as a face for it.
00000
The national court draws 4 justices from each region’s court system, and has an additional justice appointed by each president. These only lasting while that executive holds office. This means 16 national justices that are chosen by their judiciaries, and 5 appointed by executives. 21 in all.
Toss in term and age limits. We want age limits to prevent mental degradation or the social stratification that comes from age. Term limits help ensure that justices can’t remain too long, inviting corruption. I would say 10 years is reasonable for the judiciary justices. The executive justices picked by a president can’t have more than two terms for this position, so they can last up to 8 years if picked twice by presidents. This should allow for a reasonable amount of ‘churn’ in viewpoints, while still allowing the supreme court to have coherence.
The checks and balances comes from different factions - regions and administrations - sending representatives to assert their interests. Hopefully, this prevents the courts from being overly stacked for too long.
Make it a seat for each state in the union.
nah, that’s what messed up the senate.
The Senate was always designed as a wealthy check on the will of the people. We would be better off without the Senate and increasing the size of Congress dramatically.
Comrade Pickles is right about rolling term limits. I propose 20 year terms, first two years are as a clerk to get them up to speed on SCOTUS procedure and ethics. then 18 as a justice. i haven’t decided how we choose the chief justice, maybe russian roulette. none of this “you rule the country the rest of your life” bullshit. Taft would be appalled and he was both President and chief justice. The court is currently far too small. 27 seems about right so like a new justice every year or something someone else do the math. That could make for much of the court clerkship to be future justices. WHAT FUN. If someone dies or retires during their term, there should be enough other justices to fill the court. No replacement is allowed unless the court falls below quorum, or let’s say… 14? At which point an emergency session of government is called, the party in power submits 7 new justices and the party out of power submits 6. assuming good faith from both parties (don’t start), because forgive the tautology but that’s how functional government functions (i’ll let someone else figure out mechanisms to prevent bad faith actors i’m only halfway through coffee today) all of the proposed justices will be qualified and impartial, just ideologically different.
20 is to long. Fuck them. 5 year terms. Only 1 term each.
Suuure Johnny.
this fucking guy. He is just saying that so his wife can get more multi-million dollar contacts from democrat leaning orgs. The court isn’t only partisan, it’s illegitimate.
Undoing decades of settled law to strip rights from women, minorities, and everyone else. You’re damn right we view you as political. You’re a disgrace to the law and should be impeached yesterday.
“Settled law” is such a cop out. If there is any ambiguity, any question, the law should be rewritten. Anything “decided” can be “undecided”, why take the chance?
Of course they’re political, but the legislative should be drafting legislation at a quality that the SC only CAN touch it very lightly.
The whole process is broken, I guess is my point, and SC latitude is a symptom of shitty and lazy legislators.
That’s bullshit, there’s always room for interpretation of any law. Especially when laws start overlapping and someone has to decide which law takes precedence.
The real failure of the US political system is that voters that were stupid enough to believe that uncompromising is the same as strength. Once bipartisanship collapsed, the only way to get anything done was through the courts because as soon as any law passed someone somewhere sued to stop it. The courts became political because all laws passed through them.
This happened because Republicans realized their actual policies are unpopular and don’t work, so they have specifically been stacking courts with conservative judges for decades so an unelected cabal of rich assholes get to decide all the laws in the country.
I am just calling it the SC Voting Rights Interpretation now, the Act Congress approved has been completely hollowed out. If they want to create laws they should have ran for Congress.
