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.

  • DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 days ago

    If they were making judgements based on laws and logic then they would regularly have unanimous decisions.

    The fact that for each case that comes before them, it’s almost always a split decision down predictable conservative/liberal lines means that Roberts is full of shit.

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    misconceptions held by the American people that he and his colleagues are “political actors” who are making decisions based on policy, not law.

    Maybe if they stopped acting like they were making decisions based in political ideology instead of law, the American people might have those opinions…

    • ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      These fuckers are overturning settled law and acts of congress left and right. Not political actors? Bitch the political buck stops at the supreme court that much is clear.

  • godsammitdam@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    SCOTUS told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.

    It was its final, most essential command.

  • hperrin@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    128
    ·
    5 days ago

    Oh fuck all the way off you political hack. You’re playing for a very specific team, and that team is not us.

  • bthest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    Yep. Figures. Even the fucking Voting Rights Act is a fringe issue now.

    I’m so fucking hungry.

  • TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • rangber@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    5 days ago

    Given everything they have done, why pretend anymore? I honestly don’t know who they are trying to impress. They know they are succeeding at eroding democracy. Congrats. You’re on the team now. So wear your T-shirt.

    • turtlesareneat@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      4 days ago

      Roberts is fascinating, he really truly believes he can escape with an intact legacy while simultaneously overseeing the final destruction of the functional democracy that was the US. It kind of speaks to the mentality deep down, they don’t really understand the finality and monumentality of their actions, and where it’s going to lead us. But his legacy is secure: one of the most destructive men who was ever a part of our Republic.

  • Janx@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      “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.

      • halowpeano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I hear you.

          There is always leeway. Any language is imprecise, it’s the nature of the human condition. We agree on that.

          Where we disagree seems to be what to do about it.

          I don’t mean to strawman you here, so please correct me… but it seems like you’re saying “since legislators certainly will produce inexact wording in thier legislation that is open to interpretation… we just need to live with that and throw ourselves at the mercy of an unelected body with lifetime appointments. The problem is the lifetime appointees aren’t benevolent

          I’M saying “since legislators certainly will produce inexact wording in thier legislation that is open to interpretation… it is thier continually duty to explicitly update, amend, and otherwise refine the law so that it most explicitly describes the intention of the elected legislative branch. The problem is they have the power to ammend the legislation, and are the right people to do it because they are accountable to the electorate, but do not execute a core function of thier responsibility

          Like, make those fuckers work. Writing the law is thier job. If people can’t agree on what it means, make them re-write it until they do. Your PhD supervisor will send back your paper before publication covered in red ink before it gets submitted to a journal. In what world should a legislator not be held to the same standard?