Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
John Roberts' flawed defense of the Supreme Court's legitimacy
We have stolen SCOTUS seats and a court that ignores real history to cite a 16th century witch hunter to overturn an established right. We have 6 SCOTUS justices who lied to the Senate about respecting precedent and Clarence Thomas voting to support a claim of executive privilege in a case involving his wife
Roberts and his fellow partisan hacks hate being called partisan hacks
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-flawed-defense-supreme-courts-legitimacy-rcna47270
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-flawed-defense-supreme-courts-legitimacy-rcna47270
Chief Justice John Roberts has heard such talk. As the Associated Press reported, he apparently doesn’t care for it.
“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,” Roberts said at a judicial conference in Colorado. He added, “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.”
It’s tempting to dwell on the chief justice’s assertion that we don’t want the political branches telling us what the law is. After all, our system is based on the idea that we elect lawmakers whose job entails writing laws. Perhaps we’ll consider this in more detail in a separate post.
For now, however, let’s instead direct our attention to Roberts’ flawed defense.
To hear the chief justice tell it, the court’s critics of late — lawyers, scholars, journalists, rank-and-file voters, even some sitting justices, et al. — are throwing a misguided fit. Sure, we’re all welcome to criticize rulings we disagree with, but according to Roberts, we go too far when we question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.
But I can’t help but wonder whether the chief justice fully appreciates the nature — and the nuances — of the criticism.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday defended the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, saying its role should not be called into question just because people disagree with its decisions. When asked to reflect on the last year at the court in his first public appearance since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Roberts said he was concerned that lately some critics of the court’s controversial decisions have questioned the legitimacy of the court, which he said was a mistake.
“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,” Roberts said at a judicial conference in Colorado. He added, “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.”
It’s tempting to dwell on the chief justice’s assertion that we don’t want the political branches telling us what the law is. After all, our system is based on the idea that we elect lawmakers whose job entails writing laws. Perhaps we’ll consider this in more detail in a separate post.
For now, however, let’s instead direct our attention to Roberts’ flawed defense.
To hear the chief justice tell it, the court’s critics of late — lawyers, scholars, journalists, rank-and-file voters, even some sitting justices, et al. — are throwing a misguided fit. Sure, we’re all welcome to criticize rulings we disagree with, but according to Roberts, we go too far when we question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.
But I can’t help but wonder whether the chief justice fully appreciates the nature — and the nuances — of the criticism.
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
