Chief Justice John Roberts defends legitimacy of court

Source: news.yahoo.com 9/10/22

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday defended the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, saying its role should not be called into question just because people disagree with its decisions.

When asked to reflect on the last year at the court in his first public appearance since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Roberts said he was concerned that lately some critics of the court’s controversial decisions have questioned the legitimacy of the court, which he said was a mistake. He did not mention any specific cases or critics by name.

“If the court doesn’t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, I’m not sure who would take up that mantle. You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don’t want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate decision is,” Roberts said while being interviewed by two judges from the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at its conference in Colorado Springs.

Roberts described the last year as an unusual and difficult one, pointing to the public not be allowed inside the court, closed in 2020 because of the pandemic, as one hardship. He also said it was “gut wrenching” to drive into the Supreme Court that was surrounded by barricades every day.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Supreme Court of the United States needs a Code of Ethics.

Last edited 9 months ago by The Static-99R Is A Scam

I agree.We may not always agree with SCOTUS, but they are what is keeping, at least right now, the Executive and Legislative branches of the government from overstepping their powers which they are attempting to do
One of our own US Presidents said .’The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it ‘
Woodrow Wilson

Does Chief Justice Roberts understand *why* so many people feel his court is felt to be illegitimate by so many people? Did Roberts really read Justice Alito’s opinion in the Dobbs decision? I did. Could not see just how obvious it was that Alito had long ago made up his mind about the morality of abortion and carefully crafted legal arguments to fit his moral view? That is not justice. Does Roberts not see just now partisan his court has become and how political views are more important than actual jurisprudence? Does Roberts not see the obvious corruption that exists in his court, particularly in the cases of Justices Thomas and Alito?

As per the article, Roberts is quoted as saying: “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is…”.

I think the Chief is somewhat misguided here. The ‘political branches’ are constitutionally mandated to write “the law”, each and every one of them. If the legislature cannot articulate the meaning of that which they author, then why does the USSC think that they are better positioned to do so? Yes, the USSC reviews the law to determine constitutional infirmities and conflicts, or lack thereof, but they must rely upon the Congressional record (where comments articulated by legislators are memorialized) should they seek to determine the “meaning” of the law. That’s like telling Shakespeare to sit down and shut up while the USSC explains to everyone else as to the meaning of the author’s words in ‘Richard III’ and ‘Hamlet’.

Last edited 9 months ago by SG

I agree with Roberts, but on the same hand, if decades go by and a past ruling was based on very outdated sources, then shouldn’t it be reviewed? His infamous quote that registration is no more of a burden than getting a Price Club card may have had merit when you could do it by mail and there was no internet. But now that statement is so ignorant, misinformed., tone def, and insulting that if he were to look into it i would think he would feel embarrassed.