Opinion: What Chief Justice Roberts misses

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. says it’s wrong for people to deem the court illegitimate because its decisions are unpopular. He’s right — but his defense badly misses the point of why the court has fallen so far in public esteem.

“Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court,” Roberts told a judicial conference in Colorado on Friday.

The chief justice’s convenient framing fails to fully capture or acknowledge what’s going on. Yes, a majority of the public is angry about the court’s decision in June to eliminate constitutional protection for the right to abortion. But the bottom-line result isn’t the only reason for the fury.

The inflamed public reaction stems also from the fact that the law changed because the court’s membership changed. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was the culmination of a political and politicized process to bolster the conservative majority by any means necessary. And this stacked court has — time after time, but most flagrantly in overruling Roe v. Wade — abandoned normal rules of restraint, twisted or ignored doctrine, and substituted raw power to achieve its desired result.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/11/roberts-remarks-misunderstand-court-anger/

[Walleye]

1. Before McConnell a justice nominee had to be moderate

He not only held that seat open, but then he changed the rules so they couldn’t filibuster the Supreme Court nomination. So they could appoint the most right wing young judges they could find. We never had that opportunity. And don’t tell me about Harry Reid for God sakes

[speak easy]

6. Alito and Thomas were no moderates.

[Walleye]

7. True. But some stupid Democrats voted for them anyway

[msfiddlestix]

16. Yes, despite the massive protesting and petition drives in opposition

I recall the organized protests across the country and in small muniipalities imploring Feinstein and Boxer to do everything in their power each step of the way to vigoursly oppose and aruge against confirmations of Alito especially, but Roberts before him.

But our pleas, arguments, and petitions were ignored.

Everything we outlined was proven out in due course.




.

[emulatorloo]

2. I can simplify. 1 of his Justices is pro-seditionist. Another had a psychotic break and thinks he's

living in the 17th century.

[msfiddlestix]

17. Alito didn't have a psyhotic break, he was always driven, but held back the full vreadth of his

mysognistic and fascists instincts. Now he feels completely liberated.

[IbogaProject]

3. Most of those R were appointed by popular vote loosers

So yes we do look down on your tyranny and we hope you never feel comfort in public the rest of your miserable life. Go hide in shame or pick up Bouvier's law dictionary and stop using that UK sourced Black's Law Dictionary and start advocating for liberty and justice.

[Skittles]

4. strange

they get this RIGHT, but trash Biden for calling out FASCISTS in a speech?

[ThoughtCriminal]

5. His court consistently

Chooses corporate power over individual freedom, workers, consumers, and the environment.
Authoritarianism over democracy
Religious dogma over of separation of church and state
Right-wing ideology over the rule of law.
Justices fail to recuse themselves from cases in which there are clear conflicts of interest

So in sense, it is not just that the court majority was appointed by illegitimate means. They are corrupt and the rulings of the GOP appointed Justices also lack legitimacy.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. And this stacked court wholly abandoned the concept of Stare Decisis,

IOW, following precedent.

These are the prime examples of judicial activism.

And they won't stop at Dobbs. They can re-make this country into a fascist state through the judiciary. Hitler did it and succeeded.

[Earth-shine]

9. The first time I heard the term "Stare Decisis" it was out of Alito's mouth during confirmation. nt

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Irony or hypocrisy?

[DownriverDem]

11. Will they continue

to have unpopular opinions? I can't help but wonder what will happen to LGBTQ rights. Will they end marriage for them?

[Democrats_win]

12. What about striking down campaign finance laws and allowing voter suppression?

It's unthinkable that in the twenty-first century an American political party could work to suppress the vote. Additionally, they struck down the will of the people to institute campaign finance laws so that a crooked congress could appoint such vile court members.

Then there's gerrymandering. Shouldn't they demand that our representative government have fair representation? There is only one path for America: raze the Supreme court building, rename this "Supreme" court, the court of equality, human rights and justice with 15 members all approved by the American Bar Association.

Roberts isn't even close on his comments, this court has been a joke for some time and we went them gone, thrown into the lake of fire so that even God doesn't remember that they existed. Oh, and take Trump with you.

[SWBTATTReg]

13. For a court to not recognize what the vast majority of Americans want, and to ignore long ...

established law/and toss it aside so effortlessly, so in Americans faces, in effect tainting us, and then they had to make their ignorant comments such as 'get over it' etc., despite their prior promises to not toss long established law, kind of a slap in the faces of Americans.

First of all, these Justices lied to us, under oath.

And are these Supreme Court justices so isolated in their world, so into themselves that they don't know the average American on the street to make such vapid judgments about Americans being angry and to 'get over it'. This was so ignorant on their part, treating regular everyday Americans like this.

[czarjak]

14. Bush appointees proclaiming racism dead is the most red Red Flag ever.

[markodochartaigh]

15. Roberts' Quote

"'Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court,' Roberts told..."


If we are supposed to be trying to be moving toward democracy, and the majority of the population by far is opposed to decision after decision of the highest court, how can the court be considered legitimate.

Of course this point doesn't address the court making up law, "never to be used again", to meddle in a presidential election, or the timing of the addition of a couple of justices so that one side, let's call them "the takers", could have absolute control over who was appointed.