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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(181,602 posts)
97. MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive
Thu May 7, 2026, 08:13 PM
Thursday

Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.

Why John Roberts’ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is clearly aware of public perceptions related to the high court, though he apparently wants Americans to see him and fellow justices as above the political fray. The Associated Press reported on his latest public remarks:

I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” he said. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”

His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.


As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not “part of the political process … and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.”.....

Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as “political actors”? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.

But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as “political actors” is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts’ remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.”....

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, “Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy.” Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.

The tarnishing of the Supreme Court — its credibility, its integrity and its reputation — has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, that’s their right, but if they want to help restore the institution’s standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Court’s problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.

Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

They need the President. mr715 Apr 30 #1
Damn it! BigmanPigman Apr 30 #4
2029. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #15
Huh if we are ever going to add Justices to the Court standingtall May 1 #29
Besides which we need a Democratic president to make decent SC nominations--- Jack Valentino May 1 #90
Yes MustLoveBeagles Apr 30 #2
The whole idea of American government was divided power bucolic_frolic Apr 30 #3
That's a thoughtful reply and I agree. BigmanPigman Apr 30 #7
We'll need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster Buckeyeblue Apr 30 #5
Nope Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #14
THIS is a must do, if we get in there. bluestarone May 1 #51
Yes,... dump the filibuster magicarpet May 1 #59
Indeed Fiendish Thingy May 1 #62
Yup,.. Fully agree. magicarpet May 1 #65
I'm pretty sure the assumption is Democrats would get rid of the filibuster in order to pass this. Wiz Imp May 1 #55
Damned right they should. hlthe2b Apr 30 #6
I listened to a liberal podcast and that made remember this issue... BigmanPigman Apr 30 #8
Yeah.. It is an uphill battle, though the SCOTUS review that included Lawrence Tribe, did recommend hlthe2b Apr 30 #10
Hear, hear!!!!! BigmanPigman Apr 30 #11
Biden's SCOTUS review did NOT recommend expansion Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #17
OFFICIALLY NO. Did you read Tribe's discussions? Apparently not. hlthe2b May 1 #21
Well, of course, there were people screaming for court expansion long before the commission was formed Fiendish Thingy May 1 #53
Lawrence Tribe was ON the committee!!! hlthe2b May 1 #63
He was but one voice on the bipartisan committee Fiendish Thingy May 1 #64
Yes. There should be 13 Justices to coincide with the 13 Circuits. yellow dahlia Apr 30 #9
That makes sense. Emile May 1 #91
What if the Republicans agreed with that logic and increased it to 13 themselves? MichMan Sunday #92
Actually, the process is more complicated than a magic wand. yellow dahlia Sunday #94
Should they? Probably. Will they? No. BlueTsunami2018 Apr 30 #12
Dems must not govern from fear of what republicans might do once back in power Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #18
I don't think they govern out of fear of Republicans. BlueTsunami2018 May 1 #66
Priority #1 in 2029. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 30 #13
Oh hell yes!!! oasis Apr 30 #16
Make it at least 15. dalton99a Apr 30 #19
No Renew Deal Apr 30 #20
That hasn't been working out for the last 30 years... and we've been winning elections. In It to Win It May 1 #74
Unfortunately not at the right time Renew Deal May 1 #75
Yes, exactly... and you know they plan to retire when Republicans win. In It to Win It May 1 #77
Graham Platner says yes. Emile May 1 #22
Yes I was just thinking that. magicarpet May 1 #67
We so need young blood in both houses of congress with fresh new provocative and magicarpet May 1 #70
No. It's The Kind Of Thing Republicans Would Do. ColoringFool May 1 #23
No it should be expanded to 15 at minimum probably more standingtall May 1 #24
It's 13 because SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #26
So we don't need to limit it to 13 because there are 13 federal districts standingtall May 1 #30
So the next democratic president can add 10 SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #33
The Supreme Court was designed to always be expanded standingtall May 1 #35
Yes it was SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #40
They have weaponized the Supreme Court to take people rights away standingtall May 1 #42
What is least controversial SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #44
If you have the power to add Justices then you don't need to defend it standingtall May 1 #45
In a democracy it should be defended and based on a principle SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #48
That's sounds like fighting to uphold red tape not principles standingtall May 1 #49
That's the argument of those who just want to win at all costs. SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #50
Would it have the same level of support if Republicans did it now? MichMan Sunday #93
Are they doing it now? SocialDemocrat61 Sunday #95
What do you mean by "originally only had 1"? sl8 May 1 #43
Yes SocialDemocrat61 May 1 #25
Yes Jilly_in_VA May 1 #37
Yes RandySF May 1 #27
After the extreme partisanship from the McConnell era, hell yes! Emile May 1 #28
Yes. OLDMDDEM May 1 #31
I want 50. One for each state. yourout May 1 #32
I want 6 new States too standingtall May 1 #34
The vibe I hear in the VI Jilly_in_VA May 1 #36
Not a secure Democratic enclave there are a territory standingtall May 1 #38
Making all US territories states would significantly exacerbate an already horrible imbalance of representation Wiz Imp May 1 #58
Well there is also a Demographic imbalance of representaation already too standingtall May 1 #72
Huh? Adding states with population under 50,000 gives California more power? Seriously? Wiz Imp May 1 #78
Yes I do standingtall May 1 #79
My search showed the representative of Puerto Rico was Jenniffer Gonzalez Colon who became Governor of Puerto Rico last Wiz Imp May 1 #81
How are laws passed? standingtall May 1 #83
So your solution to California being drowned out by smaller , less diverse states Wiz Imp May 1 #84
Still it would make America more diverse nationally as a whole standingtall May 1 #85
And you are perfectly fine with voters in American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands having 800 times the voting power Wiz Imp May 1 #86
Absolutely! -misanthroptimist May 1 #39
2021 Final Report from the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS: sl8 May 1 #41
Instantly. Or sooner. CanonRay May 1 #46
It depends on the political landscape in 28. everyonematters May 1 #47
With a DEM POTUS - YES. Do they have the cajones to do it? CousinIT May 1 #52
Term limits would be easier to get through legislation? FloridaBlues May 1 #54
Term limits is the better idea IMO. expansion becomes a runaway game where the Pubs just add more later Amishman May 1 #56
Below, you explain why that can't really happen just now. MineralMan May 1 #57
Absolfunkinlutely randr May 1 #60
It's a non-negotiable the_liberal_grandpa May 1 #61
Nothing happens until AIPAC's influence within the Democratic Party is reduced and minimized Ponietz May 1 #68
13 circuits - 13 Justices. haele May 1 #69
Better to focus on term limits pinkstarburst May 1 #71
There is no chance in hell we are getting term limits on Supreme Court Justices in a standingtall May 1 #87
Yes and add more lower court judges too. In It to Win It May 1 #73
Definitely! creeksneakers2 May 1 #76
After we win the White House, we need to do this LetMyPeopleVote May 1 #80
Yes D_Master81 May 1 #82
And term limits. orangecrush May 1 #88
Mitch McConnell says no. Emile May 1 #89
FDR recognized the need to pack the court, so should we NNguyenMD Sunday #96
MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive LetMyPeopleVote Thursday #97
I want to puke 24/7 BigmanPigman Thursday #99
Needs to be in the Platform, along with DC and PR statehood JCMach1 Thursday #98
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should the Dems expand th...»Reply #97