Opinion Roberts joins the chorus of Supreme Court whining

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
72,226
51,901
113
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has joined the list of other right-wing justices (Samuel A. Alito Jr., Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas) whining about public criticism of the court.
Let’s begin by recalling that no court was more heavily criticized than the Warren court. Yet you did not hear a constant drumbeat of complaints from the justices themselves. They let their opinions and history do the talking — an approach the current court, which is widely and correctly seen as partisan and peevish, would do well to follow.


Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

Appearing at a legal conference Friday, Roberts declared, “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is. And you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.” He continued: “Yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism. In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”



He really doesn’t get it. The degree to which this court is utterly and completely tone-deaf to its role in the destruction of its own integrity remains a powerful reason for court expansion or term limits.

Follow Jennifer Rubin's opinionsFollow

“Roberts’s failure to understand why the court has lost credibility with so many Americans smacks of ‘Let them eat cake,’ ” Joyce White Vance, a former prosecutor and a distinguished professor of the practice of law at the University of Alabama law school, told me. “The Supreme Court has a proud history of defending our rights, not taking them away. The Roberts court will go down in history as the first one” to strip away people’s rights.
Ruth Marcus: What Chief Justice Roberts misses
University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman said: “I would be embarrassed to say something that naive and divorced from reality if I had said it as a first-year law student. For the chief justice to say it is just an insult to the intellect of everyone who knows anything about the court, American democracy and politics.”











Let’s start with the obvious. It’s a fact, not an accusation, that the court is losing the public’s confidence. One need only look at a slew of polls to see that the court’s self-image as a nonpartisan institution does not match public perception. The question that remains is whether Roberts and the other five conservative justices will make it worse.
Roberts would rather not address the root of the court’s credibility crisis: its conservative members’ blatant disregard of nearly 50 years of precedent, their misuse and abuse of facts and history, their penchant for delivering public screeds in political settings, their misleading answers in confirmation hearings, their improper use of the shadow docket, their prior placement on the shortlist of potential justices by right-wing dark-money groups attempting to transform the judiciary, their opposition to adhering to a mandatory code of judicial ethics — and a refusal by Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, despite the anti-democracy activism of his wife, Ginni.
And let’s not forget: The court got its 6-3 supermajority largely through GOP hypocrisy and Congress’s refusal to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency.











There is a price to be paid for such shenanigans.
If Roberts and the conservative bloc were to engage in just a tiny amount of self-reflection, they would understand that their own actions have brought them to this point. Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck, of the University of Texas school of law, asked me rhetorically: “If the court’s legitimacy doesn’t come from public acceptance of the principled nature of its decision-making, where does it come from?”
While Roberts might not have written the most egregious opinions, he has joined in them, from the abortion ruling in Dobbs, to the prayer-in-schools ruling in Bremerton, to a Brnovich decision on voting rights, written by Alito, that “blatantly ignored the plain language of the law and rewrote it to fit his partisan and ideological views,” as political scientist Norman Ornstein told me. Moreover, Ornstein said, it is Roberts who has “ignored Clarence Thomas’s blatant conflicts of interest and continues to oppose applying the judicial code of ethics to the Supreme Court, even as its credibility plummets.”







He concluded: “John G. Roberts Jr. is far from the worst justice undermining the fundamental legitimacy of the court, but he is surely culpable.”
The court has failed to regulate itself and instead has abused its power. None of the six right-wing justices acknowledge, nor do they signal they want to halt, the conduct that has lost the public’s confidence.
So it’s up to Congress and the president to shore up the court’s credibility. Allocating more seats to correct the damage done by Sen. Mitch McConnell’s court-packing, imposing term limits on all justices and enacting a mandatory code of ethics would be good places to start.

 

Huey Grey

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2013
49,359
71,710
113
Roberts can go fvck himself. He did nothing while Kav made a mockery of the confirmation process, did nothing as Mitch held up a vote for nearly a year, did nothing as Thomas' old lady took part in a coup, and he most certainly did nothing as three Rs lied through their teeth over abortion. Rs once again prove they will not take responsibility for their own actions.
 

artradley

HR Legend
Apr 26, 2013
30,555
54,216
113
The argument he makes, and others make, that grates the hell out of me is this:

"But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”

This is an egregiously disingenuous statement - often made by MAGATs in retort to criticisms about Trump. No, we do not question the legitimacy of the court just because we disagree with an opinion. We criticize the legitimacy because of blatant behavior that demonstrates the "jurists" have no intention of actually following the law and reaching sober conclusions. I can always respect a thoughtful opinion on which I disagree. Thomas has, from the day he presided over Rush Limbaugh's wedding, demonstrated that he has always intended to politicize the court and use his position to pursue a rightwing agenda, law and constitution be damned. In recent years he and his wife have completely gone over the edge and no longer live in the universe of the sane.

This aggressive and purposeful politicizing of the court to advance strident political views - combined with underhanded tactics used by the GOP to stack the court with those kinds of members - is what delegitimizes the court. Nobody tries to predict the court's various rulings based on the constitution, the law, or case history. They know the decision will be made based on political reasoning. Which is an absurd place to be, but it is where we are now.

The problem is that the Democrats keep fighting using the Queensberry rules, while the GOP is fighting no-holds-barred.
 

95Hawk

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2001
7,362
17,070
113
I like how the left cries about the GOP "sewing doubt in our democratic institutions" when they don't like them casting aspersions on the FBI or White House, but it's perfectly fine to delegitimize an entire branch of government when they see fit.

“Sewing doubt”?

sewingmeme7.jpg
 

NoleATL

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jul 11, 2007
30,249
28,606
113
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has joined the list of other right-wing justices (Samuel A. Alito Jr., Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas) whining about public criticism of the court.
Let’s begin by recalling that no court was more heavily criticized than the Warren court. Yet you did not hear a constant drumbeat of complaints from the justices themselves. They let their opinions and history do the talking — an approach the current court, which is widely and correctly seen as partisan and peevish, would do well to follow.


Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

Appearing at a legal conference Friday, Roberts declared, “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is. And you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.” He continued: “Yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism. In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”



He really doesn’t get it. The degree to which this court is utterly and completely tone-deaf to its role in the destruction of its own integrity remains a powerful reason for court expansion or term limits.

Follow Jennifer Rubin's opinionsFollow

“Roberts’s failure to understand why the court has lost credibility with so many Americans smacks of ‘Let them eat cake,’ ” Joyce White Vance, a former prosecutor and a distinguished professor of the practice of law at the University of Alabama law school, told me. “The Supreme Court has a proud history of defending our rights, not taking them away. The Roberts court will go down in history as the first one” to strip away people’s rights.
Ruth Marcus: What Chief Justice Roberts misses
University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman said: “I would be embarrassed to say something that naive and divorced from reality if I had said it as a first-year law student. For the chief justice to say it is just an insult to the intellect of everyone who knows anything about the court, American democracy and politics.”











Let’s start with the obvious. It’s a fact, not an accusation, that the court is losing the public’s confidence. One need only look at a slew of polls to see that the court’s self-image as a nonpartisan institution does not match public perception. The question that remains is whether Roberts and the other five conservative justices will make it worse.
Roberts would rather not address the root of the court’s credibility crisis: its conservative members’ blatant disregard of nearly 50 years of precedent, their misuse and abuse of facts and history, their penchant for delivering public screeds in political settings, their misleading answers in confirmation hearings, their improper use of the shadow docket, their prior placement on the shortlist of potential justices by right-wing dark-money groups attempting to transform the judiciary, their opposition to adhering to a mandatory code of judicial ethics — and a refusal by Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, despite the anti-democracy activism of his wife, Ginni.
And let’s not forget: The court got its 6-3 supermajority largely through GOP hypocrisy and Congress’s refusal to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency.











There is a price to be paid for such shenanigans.
If Roberts and the conservative bloc were to engage in just a tiny amount of self-reflection, they would understand that their own actions have brought them to this point. Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck, of the University of Texas school of law, asked me rhetorically: “If the court’s legitimacy doesn’t come from public acceptance of the principled nature of its decision-making, where does it come from?”
While Roberts might not have written the most egregious opinions, he has joined in them, from the abortion ruling in Dobbs, to the prayer-in-schools ruling in Bremerton, to a Brnovich decision on voting rights, written by Alito, that “blatantly ignored the plain language of the law and rewrote it to fit his partisan and ideological views,” as political scientist Norman Ornstein told me. Moreover, Ornstein said, it is Roberts who has “ignored Clarence Thomas’s blatant conflicts of interest and continues to oppose applying the judicial code of ethics to the Supreme Court, even as its credibility plummets.”







He concluded: “John G. Roberts Jr. is far from the worst justice undermining the fundamental legitimacy of the court, but he is surely culpable.”
The court has failed to regulate itself and instead has abused its power. None of the six right-wing justices acknowledge, nor do they signal they want to halt, the conduct that has lost the public’s confidence.
So it’s up to Congress and the president to shore up the court’s credibility. Allocating more seats to correct the damage done by Sen. Mitch McConnell’s court-packing, imposing term limits on all justices and enacting a mandatory code of ethics would be good places to start.

Looks like the MAGAt Marxists have something on Roberts.
 

goldmom

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
20,505
23,979
113
We aren't the one's who delegitimized the Supreme Court. That was all McConnell, Trump, and a few of the Justice's doing.
Who is we, bad ass? And ANY item invoking the name of Jennifer Rubin is a load of 💩.
I grew up in the era of seeing billboards that read “Impeach Earl
Warren’.
Hooray 1st Amendment but it didn’t delegitimize the judicial branch of the government.
 

franklinman

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2011
3,472
3,864
113
I like how the left cries about the GOP "sewing doubt in our democratic institutions" when they don't like them casting aspersions on the FBI or White House, but it's perfectly fine to delegitimize an entire branch of government when they see fit.
Well i call garbage, garbage when i see it, now i'm smelling it from Thomas and his crazy wife.
 

Chishawk1425

HR Legend
Nov 27, 2019
48,132
82,211
113
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has joined the list of other right-wing justices (Samuel A. Alito Jr., Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas) whining about public criticism of the court.
Let’s begin by recalling that no court was more heavily criticized than the Warren court. Yet you did not hear a constant drumbeat of complaints from the justices themselves. They let their opinions and history do the talking — an approach the current court, which is widely and correctly seen as partisan and peevish, would do well to follow.


Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

Appearing at a legal conference Friday, Roberts declared, “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is. And you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.” He continued: “Yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism. In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”



He really doesn’t get it. The degree to which this court is utterly and completely tone-deaf to its role in the destruction of its own integrity remains a powerful reason for court expansion or term limits.

Follow Jennifer Rubin's opinionsFollow

“Roberts’s failure to understand why the court has lost credibility with so many Americans smacks of ‘Let them eat cake,’ ” Joyce White Vance, a former prosecutor and a distinguished professor of the practice of law at the University of Alabama law school, told me. “The Supreme Court has a proud history of defending our rights, not taking them away. The Roberts court will go down in history as the first one” to strip away people’s rights.
Ruth Marcus: What Chief Justice Roberts misses
University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman said: “I would be embarrassed to say something that naive and divorced from reality if I had said it as a first-year law student. For the chief justice to say it is just an insult to the intellect of everyone who knows anything about the court, American democracy and politics.”











Let’s start with the obvious. It’s a fact, not an accusation, that the court is losing the public’s confidence. One need only look at a slew of polls to see that the court’s self-image as a nonpartisan institution does not match public perception. The question that remains is whether Roberts and the other five conservative justices will make it worse.
Roberts would rather not address the root of the court’s credibility crisis: its conservative members’ blatant disregard of nearly 50 years of precedent, their misuse and abuse of facts and history, their penchant for delivering public screeds in political settings, their misleading answers in confirmation hearings, their improper use of the shadow docket, their prior placement on the shortlist of potential justices by right-wing dark-money groups attempting to transform the judiciary, their opposition to adhering to a mandatory code of judicial ethics — and a refusal by Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, despite the anti-democracy activism of his wife, Ginni.
And let’s not forget: The court got its 6-3 supermajority largely through GOP hypocrisy and Congress’s refusal to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency.











There is a price to be paid for such shenanigans.
If Roberts and the conservative bloc were to engage in just a tiny amount of self-reflection, they would understand that their own actions have brought them to this point. Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck, of the University of Texas school of law, asked me rhetorically: “If the court’s legitimacy doesn’t come from public acceptance of the principled nature of its decision-making, where does it come from?”
While Roberts might not have written the most egregious opinions, he has joined in them, from the abortion ruling in Dobbs, to the prayer-in-schools ruling in Bremerton, to a Brnovich decision on voting rights, written by Alito, that “blatantly ignored the plain language of the law and rewrote it to fit his partisan and ideological views,” as political scientist Norman Ornstein told me. Moreover, Ornstein said, it is Roberts who has “ignored Clarence Thomas’s blatant conflicts of interest and continues to oppose applying the judicial code of ethics to the Supreme Court, even as its credibility plummets.”







He concluded: “John G. Roberts Jr. is far from the worst justice undermining the fundamental legitimacy of the court, but he is surely culpable.”
The court has failed to regulate itself and instead has abused its power. None of the six right-wing justices acknowledge, nor do they signal they want to halt, the conduct that has lost the public’s confidence.
So it’s up to Congress and the president to shore up the court’s credibility. Allocating more seats to correct the damage done by Sen. Mitch McConnell’s court-packing, imposing term limits on all justices and enacting a mandatory code of ethics would be good places to start.

Useless pukes
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman

abby97

HR All-American
Sep 16, 2010
4,222
3,778
113
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has joined the list of other right-wing justices (Samuel A. Alito Jr., Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas) whining about public criticism of the court.
Let’s begin by recalling that no court was more heavily criticized than the Warren court. Yet you did not hear a constant drumbeat of complaints from the justices themselves. They let their opinions and history do the talking — an approach the current court, which is widely and correctly seen as partisan and peevish, would do well to follow.


Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates

Appearing at a legal conference Friday, Roberts declared, “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is. And you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.” He continued: “Yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism. In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”



He really doesn’t get it. The degree to which this court is utterly and completely tone-deaf to its role in the destruction of its own integrity remains a powerful reason for court expansion or term limits.

Follow Jennifer Rubin's opinionsFollow

“Roberts’s failure to understand why the court has lost credibility with so many Americans smacks of ‘Let them eat cake,’ ” Joyce White Vance, a former prosecutor and a distinguished professor of the practice of law at the University of Alabama law school, told me. “The Supreme Court has a proud history of defending our rights, not taking them away. The Roberts court will go down in history as the first one” to strip away people’s rights.
Ruth Marcus: What Chief Justice Roberts misses
University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman said: “I would be embarrassed to say something that naive and divorced from reality if I had said it as a first-year law student. For the chief justice to say it is just an insult to the intellect of everyone who knows anything about the court, American democracy and politics.”











Let’s start with the obvious. It’s a fact, not an accusation, that the court is losing the public’s confidence. One need only look at a slew of polls to see that the court’s self-image as a nonpartisan institution does not match public perception. The question that remains is whether Roberts and the other five conservative justices will make it worse.
Roberts would rather not address the root of the court’s credibility crisis: its conservative members’ blatant disregard of nearly 50 years of precedent, their misuse and abuse of facts and history, their penchant for delivering public screeds in political settings, their misleading answers in confirmation hearings, their improper use of the shadow docket, their prior placement on the shortlist of potential justices by right-wing dark-money groups attempting to transform the judiciary, their opposition to adhering to a mandatory code of judicial ethics — and a refusal by Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, despite the anti-democracy activism of his wife, Ginni.
And let’s not forget: The court got its 6-3 supermajority largely through GOP hypocrisy and Congress’s refusal to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency.











There is a price to be paid for such shenanigans.
If Roberts and the conservative bloc were to engage in just a tiny amount of self-reflection, they would understand that their own actions have brought them to this point. Law professor Stephen I. Vladeck, of the University of Texas school of law, asked me rhetorically: “If the court’s legitimacy doesn’t come from public acceptance of the principled nature of its decision-making, where does it come from?”
While Roberts might not have written the most egregious opinions, he has joined in them, from the abortion ruling in Dobbs, to the prayer-in-schools ruling in Bremerton, to a Brnovich decision on voting rights, written by Alito, that “blatantly ignored the plain language of the law and rewrote it to fit his partisan and ideological views,” as political scientist Norman Ornstein told me. Moreover, Ornstein said, it is Roberts who has “ignored Clarence Thomas’s blatant conflicts of interest and continues to oppose applying the judicial code of ethics to the Supreme Court, even as its credibility plummets.”







He concluded: “John G. Roberts Jr. is far from the worst justice undermining the fundamental legitimacy of the court, but he is surely culpable.”
The court has failed to regulate itself and instead has abused its power. None of the six right-wing justices acknowledge, nor do they signal they want to halt, the conduct that has lost the public’s confidence.
So it’s up to Congress and the president to shore up the court’s credibility. Allocating more seats to correct the damage done by Sen. Mitch McConnell’s court-packing, imposing term limits on all justices and enacting a mandatory code of ethics would be good places to start.

You've out done yourself this time. This might be the most partisan untruthful article you've ever posted. Trust me, that is an accomplishment.
 

abby97

HR All-American
Sep 16, 2010
4,222
3,778
113
The argument he makes, and others make, that grates the hell out of me is this:

"But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”

This is an egregiously disingenuous statement - often made by MAGATs in retort to criticisms about Trump. No, we do not question the legitimacy of the court just because we disagree with an opinion. We criticize the legitimacy because of blatant behavior that demonstrates the "jurists" have no intention of actually following the law and reaching sober conclusions. I can always respect a thoughtful opinion on which I disagree. Thomas has, from the day he presided over Rush Limbaugh's wedding, demonstrated that he has always intended to politicize the court and use his position to pursue a rightwing agenda, law and constitution be damned. In recent years he and his wife have completely gone over the edge and no longer live in the universe of the sane.

This aggressive and purposeful politicizing of the court to advance strident political views - combined with underhanded tactics used by the GOP to stack the court with those kinds of members - is what delegitimizes the court. Nobody tries to predict the court's various rulings based on the constitution, the law, or case history. They know the decision will be made based on political reasoning. Which is an absurd place to be, but it is where we are now.

The problem is that the Democrats keep fighting using the Queensberry rules, while the GOP is fighting no-holds-barred.
What's a MAGAT?
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
97,299
127,281
113
Roberts must really be feeling the heat if he took the time to piss and moan in public. He's the third conservative justice to spew eye water over how mean the public is being towards the SCOTUS. He refuses to understand that he is drastically out of touch with the average American, and the average American can think for themselves.
Every conservative justice lied during their confirmation hearing about Roe. People understand this. That's a reason the court is suffering in the eyes of the public.
Thomas is crazy. That's why the court is suffering in the eyes of the public.
The process of nominating and confirming justices is horribly broken, and the public is seeing the results of one stolen nomination, and one nomination that violated the rule that the Republicans made up in 2016.