John Roberts Has Lost the Public. Does He Care?
BY DAHLIA LITHWICK
You would be forgiven were you to find yourself suffering from some version of motion sickness when reading about Chief Justice John Roberts worldview at the start of this new Supreme Court term. The chief justice, or so the legend holds, was a moderate conservative until he became a moderate moderate, until he morphed into a MAGA warrior last term. He was a humble minimalist until he turned into a grasping maximalist. He started his reign as chief justice as a coalition forger and then changed into a coalition destroyer. And as we continue to scratch our heads over where he has come from and where he has gone, one final mystery continues to confound: What ever happened to the chiefs legendary capacity to read the room?
Joan Biskupics reported piece in CNN this week, about the chief justices very extremely bad summer, bears the slightly misleading title John Roberts Remains Confounded by Donald Trump as Election Approaches. But as the analysis itself makes clear, its not the former president who is confounding the chief. Its the general public. Roberts, according to observers, was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution. His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency. As a consequence, reports Biskupic, Unlike most of the justices, he made no public speeches over the summer. Colleagues and friends who saw him said he looked especially weary, as if carrying greater weight on his shoulders.
This echoes precisely the blockbuster New York Times reporting from last month from Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak, who also pointed out that Roberts had convinced himself last term that he would be able to razzle-dazzle the nation with soaring constitutional rhetoric in his immunity opinion, in ways that would lower the temperature in the public fury at the high court post-Dobbs: In his writings on the immunity case, write Kantor and Liptak,
Of course we all know how that worked out. And so, reportedly, does Roberts (or at least he does now). As the Times piece wryly observed, the public response to the decision, announced in July on the final day of the term, was nothing like what his lofty phrases seemed to anticipate. Both the CNN and Times accounts would seem to suggest, then, that it is not that Roberts politics or ideology shifted last term, when he handed former President Donald Trump three consequential, broad victories, each of which appeared in an opinion that Roberts wrote himself. What seems to have fundamentally changed was Roberts capacity to anticipate that there would be a backlash.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/supreme-court-analysis-john-roberts-public-confidence-crash.html
msongs
(70,170 posts)wcmagumba
(3,145 posts)also get rid of the Electoral College...
czarjak
(12,404 posts)You're a W lackey. He hates Black People too. The Decider?
Mister Ed
(6,352 posts)eppur_se_muova
(37,389 posts)he was bound to do the same thing: push to revive the notion of an imperial Presidency. He hoped to get out of it with reputation intact, but that was always a fool's errand. Now that he has nothing to lose, he is liberated to do whatever he wants. Not something to look forward to.
Lonestarblue
(11,811 posts)Unfortunately, we must live with this court unless Harris wins and Democrats have majorities in Congress and have the gumption to add four new justices and replace Roberts as Chief Justice. I would also like to see Thomas impeached for his totally unethical behavior and courting of wealthy Republicans with cases before the court.
Edited to add: The Constitution allows justices to serve with good behavior. Its time for Democrats to put some definitions of what good behavior means.
ColoradoHoosier
(27 posts)That's why they are all now assigned billionaire 'handlers', to make sure they don't fall down the 'care' hole, as some of their picks in the past have done.