57 Comments
User's avatar
Carrie's avatar

John Roberts will go down in history as the worst Chief Justice ever.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

He’ll have to wrassle with Taney.

Expand full comment
Leonard Grossman's avatar

He's working on that.

Expand full comment
Randy's avatar

He's already taken the lead in that race. The question now is whether he'll lap him.

Expand full comment
Teri's avatar

Who’s surprised that Roberts is so desperately clinging to the fence? What a colossal coward. He can’t even bring himself to give an opinion on what should be crystal clear to every American citizen.

I guess threats and violence are only acceptable if it’s Dem appointed judges, and that also includes anyone left of center.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Also includes any one of color … and of womanhood.

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

company man cosplaying as "your honor". always has been.

Expand full comment
Lillian Holsworth's avatar

Robert's fell off the Democracy wagon after Jan 6 2021 - the beginning of damaging our Democracy by Roberts was the mucking about when

Roberts blithely created those immunity clauses ..for the traitor he wanted to rule America...now he has continued to uplift this 47Git & his Fascist Regime time & time again. Robert's has destroyed all credibility that he set out & wanted for his court by choosing Trump's wishes. And now Robert's is a Complete Charlatan , he has made farce of his very own Supreme Court.

Robert's has made his choice- and its not to Uphold the Constitution..he chooses Project 2O25, and the Nazi in the White House.

Expand full comment
Sam.'s avatar

Roberts was never on "the Democracy wagon"; if he ever were, Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 was when he "fell off." Please, for the love of God, people, *stop letting your anger at Trump make you believe that he is an exception.* There is no exception: This is what conservatives have wanted for a long, long time. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222/

Expand full comment
Lillian Holsworth's avatar

I certainly don't think Robert's is an exception: its just his goals that he stated for his tenure & his court' has been thrown away & now is exceedingly deep into the relms of Totalitarian + Fascist rulings. He decided rule to protect Trump & therefore project 2O25 goals rather than sticking to the Constitution.

Expand full comment
Kristie Paresi's avatar

I wrote so much I won’t repeat it but just read my response

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Expand full comment
defineandredefine's avatar

Roberts, along with the other 6 arch-conservatives on the court, are complicit, active participants in the violence perpetrated by trump and the rest of the MAGA ghouls. It's therefore rich that he's complaining about the very small, very mild amount of violence that is coming back on him.

Expand full comment
KingRayVet's avatar

If they're concerned about violence towards justices, perhaps not go along with violence against Americans while hiding behind a robe. Damn, it's so simple to me. Why do they have such difficulty doing the proper thing? Hmmmmm...

Expand full comment
Eric Holt's avatar

He finds violence unacceptable yet continues to remove lawful remedies. He will have blood on his hands.

Expand full comment
Kristie Paresi's avatar

The Roberts court will go down in history as the most ILLEGAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL, & BRIBED court in 235 years.

They have issued the destruction of the entire democracy.

They gave an insane psychopath a crown telling him he was immune from anything he did. This is antithetical to everything the Constitution stands for.

Then they told the entire judiciary that they (judges) cannot issue any rulings to prohibit DJ from any of his unconstitutional illegal EO.

NO JUDGE can stop him no matter how illegal or unjust his orders are.

What’s to stop him from ordering all monies out of the treasury and into his pockets?

There is no JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT CAN STOP HIM.

What kind of a court would even consider behaving in this manner??

A corrupt illegitimate court that wants everyone and everything to obey the psychopath that lives in the White House.

Roberts is a complete fraud.

Expand full comment
Mark F. Buckley's avatar

Roberts is and always has been the most dangerous racist in America. I hold him personally responsible for the Iraq slaughter as well. Without BvG, Dred Scott for the new century, Roberts's ongoing destruction of the ballot and the environment and habeas corpus and unions and Miranda (Vega v. Tekoh) and abortion and the Establishment Clause and the 14thA could never have happened. All six: procedurally fraudulent, incompetent, sexist, violent, bigoted, gruesome grifters. The only service John Roberts could possibly render to humanity at this point is to suffer a fatal cardiac. He's a king, unelected for life. We don't do kings in America, not even on paper. The Federalist Papers didn't even get around to analyzing the judiciary until the very end. Congress possesses WIDE though unexercised latitude over the composition of the federal courts, and their terms of service. If the judge himself refuses to abide by the law and there is nothing we can do about it, we are obviously fooling ourselves with all this gibberish about democracy. The Framers *despised* democracy. The Framers are not your friend. The majority will remains, as always, utterly irrelevant.

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

last year, Kermit Roosevelt III put it bluntly enough that it finally got through my thick skull.

the Founders/Framers were not setting up a way to dismantle slavery. they were just fine with it. the politics of the Founders were overturned during the admins of Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ. and their ilk have never given up fighting to claw it all back.

the only point of 'originalism' is to throw out progress. and thanks to fuckers like Roberts, "institutionalist" is even more meaningless than ever.

Expand full comment
Mark F. Buckley's avatar

Citizen suffrage is unmentioned in the Supreme Law. We had to fight a civil war to get it in there. And, of course, We The People are never allowed to suggest electoral/structural changes to the Constitution itself. Other than the BOR, stolen from Europe, the entire thing is a protection racket for white male property owners. Fuck the Framers.

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

What were the 13th and 14th amendments woven/stolen from?

Expand full comment
Mark F. Buckley's avatar

The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments, John Locke and others. Reconstruction, the heart&soul of so-called democracy, arrived later.

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

Understood. My question was based on misinterpreting your "other than the BOR, the entire thing" as referring to [other than amendments 1-10] the *current* entire thing. I know the original-original didn't have amendments at all.

Expand full comment
Mark F. Buckley's avatar

Yup. I am referring to the very structure of government itself. Article1 says lots of things about what the Senate can or cannot do, but it leaves unanswered the far more crucial question concerning what constitutes a state in the first place.

Expand full comment
Robert Stadler's avatar

I don't think he's put off deciding. He's just put off announcing.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

So, here we go! Vought, the “brain” … Miller, the hammer … Roberts, the placid rubber stamp … and Trump, facing a dogleg to the right on the eighth hole.

Expand full comment
Fighting Armadillo's avatar

By allowing unlimited corporate dark money into political campaigns in Citizens United, gutting the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County, and refusing to police political gerrymandering in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Roberts Court has insulated a virulent, well-funded minority from being checked at the ballot box. With their latest rulings, they have now hog-tied the judiciary. When justice can’t be achieved through politics or the judicial system, people start looking at options that would otherwise be unthinkable. If Roberts can’t see that, he isn’t close to half as bright as he thinks he is.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Oh that John Roberts - Mr. Passive-Aggressive himself - he’s such a tease! You can’t dis those judges, only we elites can ignore their words … but daddy, he’s not to be approached; he spanks.

Expand full comment
brian gilmore's avatar

They are trying to chip away at the Fourteenth Amendment if you ask me. It is crystal clear. The reason why the nationwide injunctions were appropriate and constitutional is because the Fourteenth Amendment could not be more clear. It is the law of the 50 states. An injunction is perfectly appropriate to make that clear. Yet, they left the door open intentionally. They want Trump to now bring another case to chip away at it some more. These judicial ideologues travel in the same circle. The attempt to exploit some ficticious loophole in the Fourteenth has been out there since the Amendment was passed in 1868. The six justices know what the far right lawyers have been cooking up over the last few decades. They are aware of it. It is like a football team and a play was called. They knew this kind of lawsuit was coming and they knew how they were going to chip away at the law. The Fourteenth Amendment is called the Second Constitutution for a reason: it fixed the wretched mistakes of the founding and has promoted a diverse, open, free society. The far right Christian nationalists were never for such a country.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

The result? He looks on (fondly?) as authoritarian whims are flaunted because … well … that’s the white man’s burden (sorry, Rudyard) and it’s okay by him.

Expand full comment
John Coats's avatar

He’s made his position pretty clear.

Expand full comment
Michael Curry's avatar

I think you got it right. What institution was he supposed to care about anyway? The National Association of Country Clubs?

Expand full comment