Chief Justice John Roberts says Supreme Court is not political
Source: AP
Updated 10:24 PM EDT, May 6, 2026
HERSHEY, Pa. (AP) — Supreme Court justices are not “political actors,” Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday, insisting unpopular court decisions are based solely on the law. “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.
The high court struck down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana, finding it was an unconstitutional gerrymander based on race. The decision weakened the Civil Rights era law that has increased minority representation in Congress, and it opened the door for more redistricting across the country that could aid Republican efforts to control the House.
In recent years, the conservative majority court has also handed down landmark rulings overturning the constitutional right to abortion, expanding gun rights and ending affirmative action in higher education.
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chief-justice-8933cfe269c90746e200f2588801dfae
Utter BULLSHIT. YOU 6 are completely and unequivocally a bunch of rabid foaming-at-the-mouth soulless RW lunatics.
Like this?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
wolfie001
(7,915 posts)That's the true definition of the "Shit 6". Of course, they're also anti-gay and anti-trans and anti-worker and anti-environment too. Quite a long list of items these 6 freaks are working on for the hateful and greedy billionaire fuckers. 
Walleye
(45,312 posts)We think you are sucking up to maga and doing whatever Trump wants. Don’t give yourself credit for anything.
GCG
(108 posts)Granting the president immunity of any kind is a fucking policy decision...because he made it up!!!
Roberts doesn't have a direct connection to a sugar daddy like Clarence does...but he does have a wife who has!!!
Chasstev365
(8,056 posts)
Ponietz
(4,391 posts)That’s the same thing as saying the sky is green. He’s just gaslighting us, now.
Americanme
(536 posts)They are saying a rich man's right to free speech is a billion times greater than mine.
Ponietz
(4,391 posts)So the DOW roars and human beings are shit out of luck.
Whip-poor-will
(454 posts)They don't have to do jury duty or face a draft....nice gig if you can get it
Blues Heron
(8,993 posts)
Goonch
(5,496 posts)
OldBaldy1701E
(11,453 posts)Well, tough noogies, Johnny-Boy... we don't care what you think. The reality is your actions are most certainly partisan and are not solely 'by the law'.
So, 'can' that shit, okay? 
Javaman
(65,973 posts)fuck this disingenuous dick head
The Wizard
(13,832 posts)lock stock and barrel by the bribing class. Time to remove all vestiges masking the radical proclivities of the compromised Mediocre (formerly Supreme) Court. The Court has never stooped this low in all its history. Historically, minority rule ends badly. Ask Saddam Hussein .
Botany
(77,754 posts)bush v Gore, Citizens United, and ruling that Trump was allowed to break the law because he was
President were all just as bad.
This is the Court that that Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society wanted.
lastlib
(28,527 posts)in order to crush more worker unions, establish injustice, insure domestic serfdom, provide for our common protection, demote general welfare, and secure the blessings of money and power to ourselves and our progeny, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
We might as well make it honest and clear.......
Dustlawyer
(10,540 posts)Baitball Blogger
(52,667 posts)
NoMoreRepugs
(12,212 posts)travelingthrulife
(5,496 posts)WestMichRad
(3,365 posts)
SS32867
(3 posts)... and John Roberts (along with Thomas and Alito) need to be impeached.
I remember (many years ago) when I respected the Supreme Court.
Lasher
(29,642 posts)President Richard Nixon on November 17, 1973
SergeStorms
(20,775 posts)I hereby nominate the Roberts statement for................(drum roll please)................"The Complete Bullshit Hall of Fame!" 
surfered
(14,088 posts)
FakeNoose
(42,198 posts)That's a policy decision right there.
The SCOTUS justices are political like never before. And NOW Justice Roberts tries to deflect what they're really doing because he thinks we're stupid.
GiqueCee
(4,617 posts)... is steeped in fermented malice and unrepentant racism. He is not a good person; he is not an honest person. He is a right-wing hate monger who views blatant deceit and corruption as viable tools to institute a new feudalism and total dominion over the lives of others.
His smug smile does not conceal the soulless monster behind it.
Attilatheblond
(9,173 posts)Did he get a bad report on some medical tests? Is he running out of time to put paint over the rot destroying the court under his 'leadership'? Did the fat cats stop lavishing him & his wife with presents?
He's a wanker.
JohnnyRingo
(20,972 posts)He's pretty partisan himself, but no one wears a political party on his sleeve like Thomas and they're very open about it.
During his confirmation hearings Brett Kavanaugh expressed sneering disdain for Democrats.
By his standards DU is kind of on the political fence.
NNadir
(38,436 posts)...politics doesn't exist, at least openly.
Just Jerome
(538 posts)some racist pos that wrote a book, “The Way Things Ought To Be?”
Johnny reminds me of that fat(not so much anymore) dead guy.
Blue Full Moon
(3,626 posts)
Ol Janx Spirit
(1,068 posts)They aren't "purely political" actors.
In fact, they aren't actors at all. They are marionettes dangling at the end of the strings of their Christo-fascist billionaire owners.
And each "performance" gets worse for the audience.
Dave Id
(318 posts)A classic example of 'can't see the forest for the trees?'
BeneteauBum
(718 posts)You interpret the law using that bias. That and enough generosity is applied from moneyed constituents.
Peace ☮️
Ray Bruns
(6,643 posts)in the first place.
sop
(19,158 posts)Americanme
(536 posts)Midnight Writer
(25,674 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(136,991 posts)
Ford_Prefect
(8,653 posts)
samsingh
(18,469 posts)
cloudbase
(6,312 posts)You know the rest.
dickthegrouch
(4,617 posts)Or even laughed out loud?
aggiesal
(10,893 posts)When siding with one party (i.e. R's) and against the other party (i.e. D's) for the same law, refering to racial bias.
Basically making it illegal to use racial bias for college entry, but perfectly legal for ICE racial profiling is perfectly fine.
Or allowing illegal gerrymandering for Texas to help (R)'s, but against other states that benefit (D)'s.
Not to mention partying with people that have business in front of SCOTUS.
It goes on & on.
The SCOTUS six-pack are extreme activist justices.
agingdem
(8,946 posts)He's desperate to rewrite his legacy of bigotry, corruption, misogyny, and Trump bend-over toady(nous)...sorry, John, but pronouncing your court above politics is like Trump declaring himself a stable genius...both big fucking lies!
Whip-poor-will
(454 posts)The court's actions speak so loudly I can't hear a word you're saying, johnny smirk face.
2na fisherman
(353 posts)And Leonard Leo conspired to stack this court to be political. It must be reformed to be the non-partisan court it was meant to be. There is just too much power to legislate from the bench with this lot.
dave99
(202 posts)idiot
Martin68
(28,026 posts)
RainCaster
(13,853 posts)He's given us:
Trickle down economics
Jim Crowe policies
Criminal immunity for the wealthiest
No healthcare for the poorest
republianmushroom
(22,607 posts)
Jilly_in_VA
(14,575 posts)And if my aunt had that and those, she'd be my uncle.
Alliepoo
(2,842 posts)Freaking liar.
dlk
(13,317 posts)n/t
DemocracyForever
(123 posts)If the GOP controlled SCOTUS really ruled based on the constitution and the law, all of the uncounted votes in Florida 2000 would've been counted as the constitution and Florida law required. Instead, they acted like the highly partisan GOP hacks that they are, stopped that legal vote count and installed the fewer vote getting Bush who then appointed Roberts to continue shredding the constitution which he continues to do to this day.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,598 posts)
red dog 1
(33,396 posts)(On social media use the hashtag #ExpandTheCourt)
ancianita
(43,322 posts)If it were just about making decisions that are “not popular,” then… why are nearly all of his “unpopular” decisions quite clearly in support of one party’s goals and ideology? Any look at the details shows why people conclude that Roberts has a partisan bent to his rulings:
In the 15 precedent-overturning cases with partisan implications, in other words, Justice Roberts voted for a conservative outcome 14 times (93%).
Chief Justice Roberts is one of only two justices since 1946 to support 100% of decisions overturning precedent that led to conservative outcomes.
Roberts’s record in precedent-overturning cases is the second-most conservative among 37 justices who have ruled in at least 5 precedent-overturning cases since 1946. With 84% conservative votes in precedent-overturning cases, Roberts only trails Justice Alito’s 88%.
Gee. I wonder why people think the Court is partisan, chief?
And, on Monday (as we pointed out) Roberts joined Alito and the conservatives on the bench to break standard practice and precedent, supporting Louisiana ripping up its election maps to favor more Republican seats — even as voting had already started —
even though, just months ago, he and the conservatives had said that Texas’ map (deemed unconstitutionally based on race by a Trump-appointed judge) couldn’t be torn up because it was “too close” to an election and voters needed “certainty.”
There is literally no explanation for December being too close to change the maps while May somehow required rushing a map change… in the same election… other than the partisan leaning of those two decisions...
So, chief, if you want people to stop thinking the Court is partisan, maybe stop making such obviously partisan decisions.
.
Oh, and also maybe talk to your colleagues.
After all, at the very moment you were whining about people thinking the court was partisan,
-- your colleague Justice Neil Gorsuch was appearing on a famously rightwing podcast to talk about why “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.” Sounds kinda partisan.
And just a few weeks ago,
-- your colleague Justice Clarence Thomas gave a speech arguing that progressives were an existential threat to America.
Gosh. Why would the public think some of you are partisan. I wonder!
dobleremolque
(1,130 posts)to identify the administration that appointed any particular judge to the bench.
In written press coverage, ...."federal judge So-and-so (Trump appointee), ......" In broadcast coverage, "....federal judge So and so, who was appointed by President Clinton in {date}....."
The whole point this editorial convention now is to give the reader or viewer or listener, a clue as to the judge's presumed political ideology and leanings.
pat_k
(13,827 posts)Pretty common these days. I was in a coffee shop. It just came out. Got some looks.
AZLD4Candidate
(6,892 posts)Your court surpasses that mark by a thousand, Johnny Boy!
KPN
(17,489 posts)unequivocally objective, including the law, including the Constitution. Either that or he thinks we're all stupid enough to believe his BS. This guy deserves to go down in history as a chief enabler of fascism, racism, and misogyny; in short, of hatred, subjugation of and grievous harm to millions of human beings.
Bluejeans
(161 posts)Yeah, the Supreme Court isn’t political like the Pope isn’t Catholic!
pansypoo53219
(23,154 posts)
Blue Owl
(59,533 posts)All the way off.
electric_blue68
(27,183 posts)Oh. You mean, like, The South in the 1940's or so?
Screw you!
So aggravating besides obviously the soon pontential/probable thwarting of more black voters, the damn energy that will have to be expended to right this wrong (yet again!), when we could be making more progress.
[Yeah, I know removing the coverage directive paved the way for decreasing effectiveness of the VRA]
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,598 posts)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
“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.
BumRushDaShow
(171,721 posts)And when else to do this but during the administration of the first black President and first black U.S. Attorney General.
Of course Congress had the opportunity to update Sect. 4 to at least give Sect. 5 another chance, but never did (or could, thanks to Roberts' landmark Citizen's United a few years earlier, that precipitated a 63 seat massacre of Democrats in the House after the 2010 election).
oldsoldierfadingfast
(363 posts)that heading is my laugh for the week, I'm hanging it up and going to bed.
Katcat
(595 posts)John Roberts is a comedian?
travelingthrulife
(5,496 posts)
LearnedHand
(5,550 posts)((eye roll so huge my eyeballs almost fell out))
CozyMystery
(755 posts)Only 3 of them have integrity. The rest of them, IMO, are grifters. Getting paid to destroy us all.