General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsChief Justice John Roberts says American public wrongly views the justices as 'political actors'
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/chief-justice-john-roberts-says-justices-are-not-political-actors-rcna343958Speaking at a conference for lawyers and judges in Hershey, Roberts said the Supreme Court is required to make decisions that are not popular and bemoaned that there is not a better understanding among the public of how the court operates.
“I think at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, [that] we’re saying we think this is what things should be as opposed to this is what the law provides,” Roberts said. “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty.”
While he conceded that people have a right to criticize the court and its decisions, he added that there is a tendency to focus too much on politics.
“We’re not simply part of the political process, and there’s a reason for that, and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate,” Roberts said.
NEW: Chief Justice John Roberts bemoans that Americans don't understand how the Supreme Court operates and see justices as "political actors". The court at times simply has to make "unpopular" decisions, he adds:
— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T00:02:43.440Z
www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stumpysbear
(289 posts)
C_U_L8R
(49,507 posts)The Chief Justice must honestly ask himself why so many believe he is politically corrupt.
displacedvermoter
(4,941 posts)what they are doing, and that these unpopular decisions are really in our best interests!
dem4decades
(14,321 posts)
Skittles
(172,643 posts)gawd, what fucking ASSHOLE he is
Stargleamer
(2,769 posts)to do what they could to stop the recount. So he expects us to believe that once appointed onto the Supreme Court he's no longer a "political actor"? What BS.
niyad
(133,783 posts)to the Constitution, and anointed REPUBLICAN bush the lesser as president, with all its attendant horrors. Tell me that was NOT "political actors", you lying, insufferabble, insulting, waste of oxygen.
Stargleamer
(2,769 posts)(Scalia and Thomas) had conflicts of interest that demanded recusal. They had family working on Bush's behalf. I think Scalia's son & Ginny Thomas.
If the recount had continued, and all overvotes and undervotes had been checked for valid votes, Al Gore would have won and this current nightmare couldn't have started.
niyad
(133,783 posts)DemocracyForever
(155 posts)as did Clarence Thomas. Sorry John Roberts but we the people know highly partisan political rats when we see them and you're the poster child for these highly partisan political rats.
johnnyfins
(3,943 posts)LIAR.
Diamond_Dog
(40,951 posts)
spooky3
(38,829 posts)He can start with a very simple instance -- that we are almost perfectly able to predict how the Republican appointees will vote on most cases. If one can predict, one understands reality. If instead what he said were true, there would be few 6-3 cases and more 9-0 cases, and there would be a mix of justices on each side of cases that have at least several minority votes.
malaise
(297,668 posts)Rec
spooky3
(38,829 posts)
malaise
(297,668 posts)Eff him.
spooky3
(38,829 posts)malaise
(297,668 posts)spooky3
(38,829 posts)malaise
(297,668 posts)I thought it as deliberate then and am more convinced it was now - given the data.
In It to Win It
(12,781 posts)Not a coincidence that decisions with political impacts that are most opposite of progressivism tend to win in this court.
Cha
(320,357 posts)niyad
(133,783 posts)
wnylib
(26,388 posts)
B.See
(8,764 posts)But right in one way. His blatant racism and bigotry IS NO ACT.
John Roberts might as well wear the robes of the Klan | Opinion - Rawstory via MSN It’s not hyperbole to say that while Roberts wears the black robes of a judge, he may as well wear the white robes of the Klan.
Roberts zealously took on the assignment coming up with arguments against the Amendment. Roberts wrote over 25 memos opposing the Amendment.
In one, he argued that the Civil Rights Act was “the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.”
themaguffin
(5,374 posts)bucolic_frolic
(55,695 posts)I didn't want to believe the truth, it was too impossible. I bought balls and strikes for a long time. Don't read his lips, watch his decisions.
Baitball Blogger
(52,682 posts)Robert's Shadow Docket is shady business.
Terry_M
(821 posts)We should see them for what they really are - culture warriors.
Not politicians, not justices (precedent? what is that???), just the purest form of culture warriors.
lostincalifornia
(5,499 posts)
MagickMuffin
(18,362 posts)Newsflash John Roberts YOUR court is extremely partisan and racist.
You side with corporations over the citizens of the United States. We The People of the United States of America are not ignorant. No matter how you try to frame it you are MAGA to the core.
Unfortunately it’s not for the benefit of the United States.
Attilatheblond
(9,184 posts)Fuck that guy
City Lights
(26,007 posts)There is nothing "supreme" about this court.
TBF
(37,089 posts)and such a danger to this country. This man's court is going to be remembered as the most corrupt in history.
appmanga
(1,513 posts)...from a man who made it his life's mission to make voting harder for minorities. When he first started that quest, the Voting Rights Act was less than 20 years old. It's astounding that these "non-political" people seem to constantly fall on the side of what one particular political party in this country seems to want, which tends to be opposite of what the majority of Americans favor. There aren't many accepted truisms held by most people in this country, but, even if they were cynical about, I'd never heard anyone of any political stripe embrace the notion that the president is above the law. That novel thinking comes from a right-wing theory of a unitary executive. But yeah, Mr. Chief Justice, please convince me this current Court isn't a political arm of the Republican Party.
dalton99a
(95,134 posts)Blues Heron
(8,999 posts)
Solly Mack
(97,226 posts)Spazito
(55,987 posts)a two year old whines less than he does.
yes, it's bad enough that these rightwing hacks are destroying democracy, they have to WHINE about what we think of them
haele
(15,563 posts)I'm not suggesting mob rule.
I'm pointing out that many of the recent rulings indicate that the majority of the Justices are coming to their decisions from a biased and uniquely cultural based outlook rather than from a neutral position starting from prior rulings on Constitutional questions. They can't even seem to conceive their decisions may cause significant harm to unrelated environments or innocent people just trying to survive, and they certainly can't seem to even consider there's a problem when they are obviously biased.
If they rule as if they believe that belonging to a certain cultural group followed by maybe only 20% of the population is the correct way forward and all others are based of moral failings and heresies, then, yeah - maybe they shouldn't be dispensing legal opinions and rulings for the entire country.
This is the Roberts court. An out of touch gathering of Country Club members trying to schmooze and favor those who can reinforce their comfortable world view.
And F*** anything that doesn't belong to their club.
vapor2
(4,840 posts)MW67
(212 posts)Paid political operative is a more accurate description,they ain't play acting
dalton99a
(95,134 posts)which they are.
Botany
(77,762 posts)… and the Roberts’ Court said that it did not say that. No, bush v Gore and Roberts and Alito would not
be on the SCOTUS. Btw how much has your wife taken in John?
usonian
(26,423 posts)
IcyPeas
(25,734 posts)Why does Gorsuch go on Fox News
Why was Gorsuch just on Megyn Kelly's show? SERIOUSLY!!!
tavernier
(14,498 posts)Maybe Kid Rock should put his words to music. The maggots would lap it up.
dgauss
(1,578 posts)Maybe that's the misunderstanding he's referring to?
angrychair
(12,464 posts)As well as he is fellow conservative judges, that regularly hangs out with rightwing billionaires trying to reshape the country through the courts.
It's just a coincidence that their decisions perfectly align with Mango Mussolini's agenda and the agenda of the people they regularly associate.
Bristlecone
(11,169 posts)
canetoad
(20,953 posts)Sort of contradicts what you're saying John.
The Roux Comes First
(2,314 posts)Scalded Nun
(1,728 posts)
struggle4progress
(126,644 posts)
rickford66
(6,089 posts)
walkingman
(11,112 posts)Dave Bowman
(7,396 posts)moondust
(21,343 posts)Why? Doesn't that suggest (racist) opposition to the very idea of addressing centuries of racial discrimination?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/chief-justice-robertss-vendetta-against-voting-rights-act
Jacson6
(2,160 posts)A raped 11 year old girl in Texas is forced to give birth to a baby.
Enough said, Johnny!
valleyrogue
(2,782 posts)Critics of these hacks know full well what they are.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.
Why John Roberts’ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive
“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” he said. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”
His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.
As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not “part of the political process … and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.”.....
Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as “political actors”? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.
But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as “political actors” is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts’ remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.”....
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, “Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy.” Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.
The tarnishing of the Supreme Court — its credibility, its integrity and its reputation — has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, that’s their right, but if they want to help restore the institution’s standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Court’s problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.
Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.