The chief justice defends court’s impartiality after decisions on abortion, presidential immunity and voting rights
US chief justice John Roberts has insisted supreme court judges are not “political actors” amid outrage over its recent decision undermining the Voting Right Act, and other moves that have benefited Donald Trump and his allies.
Roberts leads a court on which conservatives have held a six-justice majority since 2020, and handed down a series of decisions that have upended longstanding precedent and, in Trump’s second term, allowed many of his policies to take effect, at least temporarily.
Last week’s decision on the Voting Rights Act has greenlit a scramble by Republican-led states to enact new congressional maps that will break up districts drawn to elect Black lawmakers, who tend to be Democrats. That may amount to a major blow to the party’s long-term chances of controlling the US House of Representatives.
The court has also expanded use of a fast-track process known as the “shadow docket” to temporarily pause lower court rulings against the Trump administration, including his mass deportation policies and gutting of federal departments.
He lyin
This idiot is high on his own supply
HAhahahahaha.
Cool story bro.
I can’t figure out who said it first to cite it, but there’s a saying that goes:
There are two genders: male and political.
Two races: white and political.
Two sexual orientations: straight and political.Well, for Roberts, there are two kinds of SCOTUS decisions: the ones he agrees with and “political.”
John Roberts gaslights nation from the supreme court.
No no we’re not partisan you’re just looking at it wrong. Not like we twisted our arguments and disregard any precedent so our donors…I mean fellow citizens have proper rulings. Oh nice RV Clearance I hope I get the upgraded one.
Holy crap that RV was worth $270k in 1999? Damn…and that long ago. I hadn’t really read up on the story I thought the RV thing was more recent and well not as much as my townhouse was 10 years ago.
Texas gerrymandering case that would benefit Democrats in December: even though the map is unconstitutional we can’t change the map, it’s too close to an election.
Louisiana gerrymandering case this month that would benefit Republicans: the map must change because it’s unconstitutional!
John Roberts: We’Re NoT PoLiTiCaL!
…
It was the Louisiana governor who decided to act on it, it wasn’t mandated by the court.
The court is still political, but in this case it wasn’t them.
No, it’s still on them.
The voters who initially challenged Louisiana’s map asked the justices last week to speed up the usual 32-day period between when a ruling is announced and when the Supreme Court clerk formally passes the decision down to a lower court. They wrote that “time is … of the essence” with this year’s elections approaching quickly, and said the issue needs to be returned to the district court so it can “oversee an orderly process” to fix Louisiana’s maps.
On Monday, the high court granted that request, writing that the court’s typical 32-day wait period is “subject to adjustment” by the justices.
The court broke with the normal timeline to let Louisiana hurry up and do its thing. When, again, December was too close to the election to do anything about Texas’s unconstitutional map.
Ah, well i was definitely wrong then.
Overturning the VRA was clearly political, and clearly done because republicans are losing.
Hope he gets flushed like the squeaky little shit he is.
In this case, John Roberts and company decided to issue the judgement immediately over the objection of the losing party. This move seemingly facilitates Louisiana’s effort to switch maps even after voting has already started.
Meanwhile, just 2-3 years ago, Roberts said that Alabama had to continue using illegal maps because we couldn’t disrupt an election cycle that was less than 6 months away. Just a few months ago, this court said that Texas can’t be forced to change maps 4 months before election.
The only real distinguishing principle that you could use to predict these decisions is which political party benefits from the decision.
Even if the VRA decision had some principled reasoning on the merits, all of this posturing on the timelines is clearly nakedly partisan.
All that, too, yeah.
though I’d state that the VRA had not only been good law, but settled as good law in the courts. Like, at this point, I wouldn’t be shocked if they decided the 13th amendment was something to be overturned.
This is the most corrupt, illegitimate, and down right treasonous court there has ever been in the history of the U.S.
The Supreme Court is illegitimate
He’s either lying to himself, or just lying to us, but there’s nothing about this court that’s apolitical.
They must know what they’re doing because they’re engaging in acts that are clearly exceptional in the history of the court.
MFW me and my chums get sweet cars and cash money in exchange for making the world a worse place to live
Embarrassment to the legal profession.
He’s the Radical Center. You aren’t even fully into embarrassment territory until you get over to Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas.
John Roberts is very much not the radical center. He’s a conservative operator through and through, but will sometimes throw the liberals a bone for optics when it doesn’t matter so he can take big swings like this when it does.
Sure sounds like the center to me.
John Roberts is very much not the radical center.
He’s squarely at the center of DC political opinion. The Third Way Coalition and the Bloombergcrats could not have designed a more appealing SCOTUS judge in a lab. He received wide bipartisan support during his confirmation and has been lauded by leaders in both parties on a routine basis.
He’s a conservative operator through and through, but will sometimes throw the liberals a bone for optics
You’re describing the entire Clinton wing of the liberal party.
The more troubling turns are far more recent than his nomination so him having bipartisan support back then (as tended to be the standard) does nothing for this argument. I don’t believe for a second that the Democratic party is happy with the clear bias he has shown by pushing through anything the Republicans want and obstructing the Dems. Especially not when it’s Trump he’s enabling.
The more troubling turns are far more recent
“No one could have predicted that a groomed acolyte of William Rehnquist would make a shitty SCOTUS judge” is some Democrat Lobbyist tier logic.
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining
Roberts should just accept that his court is one of the three pillars in the collapse of the US into a middle power in the next 25 years.
