Chief Justice Roberts concerned about Supreme Court perceived as partisan
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back on criticism that many of the court's highest-profile cases wind up with conservative outcomes, lamented public misconception that justices are 'political actors'.
Objective Facts
Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday that the public was mistaken to view judges as 'purely political actors,' speaking at a conference for judges and lawyers who work in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Roberts told the conference that Americans think the Court is 'making policy decisions' rather than interpreting law, remarks that came just days after the court handed down a blockbuster decision gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Americans' confidence in the Supreme Court has collapsed to unprecedented depths in recent years according to national polls. During the same period Roberts made his remarks defending the Court's impartiality, Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared on a conservative podcast discussing conservative beliefs, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a public broadside against progressives, and Justice Samuel Alito gave conservative speeches condemning the left.
Left-Leaning Perspective
The Rachel Maddow Show blog (producer Steve Benen) argued that 'Roberts' latest pitch was part of a series of defenses that appear to have no discernible effect on changing public perceptions,' attributing public skepticism to 'far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings'. American Prospect columnist Ryan Cooper wrote that 'disenfranchising Black people benefits Republicans because Black people vote for Democrats, and Roberts and his fellow party activists on the Court will delete nearly any law that stands in the way of that,' citing the Court's 'decision gutting what's left of the Voting Rights Act' that 'sparked volcanic outrage across the country'. Salon's Amanda Marcotte (bylined as part of her work) characterized Roberts as understanding 'it would be easier to enact his reactionary agenda if he could maintain the illusion that the Court functioned above the grubby influence of partisan politics,' noting this 'framing charmed most Democratic senators, Supreme Court reporters and law professors for decades' but 'has curdled with the American people, who see clearly how the strike zone changes on the most important questions based on which party benefits electorally'. Benen at the Rachel Maddow Show blog argued that 'it's incumbent on the justices to consider not only why most Americans believe the Supreme Court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem' and that 'one of the main reasons so many people see justices as "political actors" is the frequency with which they act like political actors,' pointing to 'Justice Neil Gorsuch appearing on a conservative podcast' and 'Justice Clarence Thomas' delivering 'a public broadside against progressives' and 'Justice Samuel Alito giving a variety of related conservative speeches'. The New Republic editorial noted that 'a growing number of voters and elected officials favor structural reforms to rein in the conservative justices' and that 'the Supreme Court has spent the last 20 years making America nearly ungovernable' due to 'the court's self-aggrandizement, particularly when it comes to Democratic presidents'. Left critics argue that focusing on unanimous decisions 'ignores what's obvious in statistics...that on the most important cases, with the clearest partisan consequences...the Court divides on largely partisan lines,' and conclude 'if Roberts doesn't want the Supreme Court to be seen as a bunch of partisan hacks, perhaps they could stop behaving as partisan hacks'.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Conservative Legal News reported that 'Chief Justice John Roberts has a message for the country: stop treating the Supreme Court like a third political branch,' and that he 'pushed back directly on what he called a fundamental misunderstanding of the judiciary's role, telling Americans that justices are not "political actors" and that the Court's work has nothing to do with policy preferences'. Conservative outlets cited Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch as supporting this view, noting that 'multiple justices, appointed by different presidents and holding different judicial philosophies, have independently arrived at the same conclusion: the political frame is wrong, and it is doing real damage to public understanding of the law'. Fox News quoted Roberts arguing that 'justices are making decisions based on the law and contextual readings of the Constitution' and that 'considered criticism is a very good thing,' adding 'You hope it's intelligent criticism, but it doesn't have to be. It's a free country and I certainly don't object to it'. Conservative Legal News analysis argued that 'Roberts, by naming the misunderstanding directly, is making a preemptive case for institutional preservation' by 'telling the country that the cure for unpopular rulings is not structural sabotage' but rather 'a better understanding of what courts are supposed to do'. The outlet acknowledged that 'progressives who believe the Court's conservative majority has rewritten constitutional law to suit a political agenda will dismiss Roberts' framing as naive or self-serving,' while 'some conservatives may wonder whether Roberts' emphasis on institutional legitimacy sometimes comes at the cost of bold originalist rulings'. The conservative framing concluded: 'The Constitution does not ask justices to be popular. It asks them to be right about the law. When the public punishes the Court for doing exactly what it was designed to do, the problem is not the Court. If Americans cannot tell the difference between a judge and a senator, the republic has a problem'.
Deep Dive
Public confidence in the Supreme Court has collapsed to unprecedented depths in recent polls, a decline that has accelerated after a string of blockbuster decisions on voting rights, abortion, and administrative power, with the Court's conservative majority continuing to push American law dramatically rightward. Chief Justice Roberts' Wednesday remarks defending the Court against charges of partisanship occurred in a context where many of the Court's highest-profile cases wind up with conservative outcomes, and where polling shows the public views judges as 'purely political actors'. Critics point to the appointment process—where justices are nominated by political figures and confirmed by a political body—as the root of the court's perceived partisanship, with Roberts attempting to 'decouple the process of appointment from the act of adjudication'. The left's critique is that 'it's incumbent on the justices to consider not only why most Americans believe the Supreme Court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they apparently find offensive,' pointing to simultaneous statements by conservative justices that appear politically motivated. Georgetown University law professor Josh Chafetz has described this judicial worldview as 'judicial self-aggrandizement,' arguing that 'the justices "hold themselves out as a pure, reason-based alternative to the messy business of the political branches" as a means to empower themselves,' presenting themselves 'not as taking power for themselves; the courts are simply neutral conduits for the law'. Conversely, conservatives argue that 'because that perception feeds proposals designed to change the Court's structure for partisan advantage. Court-packing, mandatory rotation schemes, and jurisdiction-stripping all gain political oxygen when voters believe the justices are just politicians in robes,' making Roberts' effort at 'institutional preservation' strategically necessary to prevent structural sabotage. Looking ahead, the central question remains whether the institutionalist strategy is sufficient, 'in an era where the judiciary is increasingly viewed through a partisan lens,' with the legacy of Chief Justice Roberts 'likely defined by whether he successfully preserved the Court's standing as an independent arbiter or whether the institutional tide proved too strong to hold back'.