Chief Justice John Roberts says American public wrongly views the justices as 'political actors'

[In It to Win It]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/chief-justice-john-roberts-says-justices-are-not-political-actors-rcna343958

HERSHEY, Pa. — Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday defended the Supreme Court from what he believes are misconceptions held by the American people that he and his colleagues are “political actors” who are making decisions based on policy, not law.

Speaking at a conference for lawyers and judges in Hershey, Roberts said the Supreme Court is required to make decisions that are not popular and bemoaned that there is not a better understanding among the public of how the court operates.

“I think at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, [that] we’re saying we think this is what things should be as opposed to this is what the law provides,” Roberts said. “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty.”

While he conceded that people have a right to criticize the court and its decisions, he added that there is a tendency to focus too much on politics.

“We’re not simply part of the political process, and there’s a reason for that, and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate,” Roberts said.

NEW: Chief Justice John Roberts bemoans that Americans don't understand how the Supreme Court operates and see justices as "political actors". The court at times simply has to make "unpopular" decisions, he adds:
www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...

— Lawrence Hurley (@lawrencehurley.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T00:02:43.440Z

[stumpysbear]

1. That was good for a laugh

[C_U_L8R]

2. We, the public, are not the problem.

The Chief Justice must honestly ask himself why so many believe he is politically corrupt.

[displacedvermoter]

3. We are too fucking stupid to understand

what they are doing, and that these unpopular decisions are really in our best interests!

[dem4decades]

4. Kiss my ass John, i have eyes.

[Skittles]

5. we didn't until you fucking HACKS came along

gawd, what fucking ASSHOLE he is

[Stargleamer]

6. I believe this POS worked with Bush's team

to do what they could to stop the recount. So he expects us to believe that once appointed onto the Supreme Court he's no longer a "political actor"? What BS.

[niyad]

18. FIVE REPUBLICAN-appointed justices voted to abrogate their duties

to the Constitution, and anointed REPUBLICAN bush the lesser as president, with all its attendant horrors. Tell me that was NOT "political actors", you lying, insufferabble, insulting, waste of oxygen.

[Stargleamer]

26. And even more egregious is 2 of them. . .

(Scalia and Thomas) had conflicts of interest that demanded recusal. They had family working on Bush's behalf. I think Scalia's son & Ginny Thomas.

If the recount had continued, and all overvotes and undervotes had been checked for valid votes, Al Gore would have won and this current nightmare couldn't have started.

[niyad]

34. Exactly!!!!

[DemocracyForever]

62. Roberts, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett aided Bush in 2000

as did Clarence Thomas. Sorry John Roberts but we the people know highly partisan political rats when we see them and you're the poster child for these highly partisan political rats.

[johnnyfins]

7. I AM free to criticize. Hey Johnny. GFY.

LIAR.

[Diamond_Dog]

8. Don't insult us with your b.s. Roberts.

[spooky3]

9. As a retired empiricist, I suggest Roberts take an intro course in examining data.

He can start with a very simple instance -- that we are almost perfectly able to predict how the Republican appointees will vote on most cases. If one can predict, one understands reality. If instead what he said were true, there would be few 6-3 cases and more 9-0 cases, and there would be a mix of justices on each side of cases that have at least several minority votes.

[malaise]

13. Nailed it

Rec

[spooky3]

15. why, thank you!

[malaise]

16. The data speaks for itself

Eff him.

[spooky3]

17. He's gaslighting, and he knows it. And corrupt to the core. nt

[malaise]

20. Then there's this

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221219364

[spooky3]

21. Piece of shit. nt

[malaise]

23. I never forgot it

I thought it as deliberate then and am more convinced it was now - given the data.

[In It to Win It]

24. One of his colleagues just said progressivism can't exist in the USA.

Not a coincidence that decisions with political impacts that are most opposite of progressivism tend to win in this court.

[Cha]

10. LIAR.. add that to your legacy, John Roberts. nt

[niyad]

11. If it walks like a duck, etc.

[wnylib]

43. Or, if it gaslights like a MAGA........

[B.See]

12. TRANSLATION: Klansman in robes tries to blow smoke up our bums.

But right in one way. His blatant racism and bigotry IS NO ACT.

John Roberts might as well wear the robes of the Klan | Opinion - Rawstory via MSN It’s not hyperbole to say that while Roberts wears the black robes of a judge, he may as well wear the white robes of the Klan.

Starting as early as 1981, as a 26-year-old lawyer just three years out of Harvard Law School, Roberts began his campaign to undermine the Civil Rights Act. He got himself a job as Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General William French Smith. Congress was about to amend the Civil Rights Act to provide that state laws would be illegal if they had a racially discriminatory effect, without having to prove that they had a racially discriminatory intent—something almost impossible to prove.

Roberts zealously took on the assignment coming up with arguments against the Amendment. Roberts wrote over 25 memos opposing the Amendment.

In one, he argued that the Civil Rights Act was “the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.”

[themaguffin]

14. Mr Balls and strikes can go F himself.

[bucolic_frolic]

19. This is like saying the car dealership exists to keep your maintenance costs low

I didn't want to believe the truth, it was too impossible. I bought balls and strikes for a long time. Don't read his lips, watch his decisions.

[Baitball Blogger]

22. Not wrongly. Not wrongly.

Robert's Shadow Docket is shady business.

[Terry_M]

25. He's right, we shouldn't see them as political actors

We should see them for what they really are - culture warriors.
Not politicians, not justices (precedent? what is that???), just the purest form of culture warriors.

[lostincalifornia]

27. Anyone reading the Writings of Alito and Thomas know that Robert's is full of it.

[MagickMuffin]

28. Poor John thinks we are ignorant ones

Newsflash John Roberts YOUR court is extremely partisan and racist.

You side with corporations over the citizens of the United States. We The People of the United States of America are not ignorant. No matter how you try to frame it you are MAGA to the core.

Unfortunately it’s not for the benefit of the United States.

[Attilatheblond]

29. Vain racist piggy so worried how history will view him that he's telling us what to think?

Fuck that guy

[City Lights]

30. That hack can pound sand.

There is nothing "supreme" about this court.

[TBF]

31. He is so full of himself -

and such a danger to this country. This man's court is going to be remembered as the most corrupt in history.

[appmanga]

32. What a load of bullshit...

...from a man who made it his life's mission to make voting harder for minorities. When he first started that quest, the Voting Rights Act was less than 20 years old. It's astounding that these "non-political" people seem to constantly fall on the side of what one particular political party in this country seems to want, which tends to be opposite of what the majority of Americans favor. There aren't many accepted truisms held by most people in this country, but, even if they were cynical about, I'd never heard anyone of any political stripe embrace the notion that the president is above the law. That novel thinking comes from a right-wing theory of a unitary executive. But yeah, Mr. Chief Justice, please convince me this current Court isn't a political arm of the Republican Party.

[dalton99a]

40. +1. Roberts is a virulent racist and a traitor to the Constitution

[Blues Heron]

33. They are traitors enabling a coup against our democracy. Until they are removed it will continue to get worse.

[Solly Mack]

35. lololol Give it up, dude. You're a piece of shit. Stop trying to convince people otherwise.

[Spazito]

36. Geez, he is beyond pathetic...

a two year old whines less than he does.

[Skittles]

59. yes

yes, it's bad enough that these rightwing hacks are destroying democracy, they have to WHINE about what we think of them

[haele]

37. Then maybe the court shouldn't rule as if they are political actors...

I'm not suggesting mob rule.
I'm pointing out that many of the recent rulings indicate that the majority of the Justices are coming to their decisions from a biased and uniquely cultural based outlook rather than from a neutral position starting from prior rulings on Constitutional questions. They can't even seem to conceive their decisions may cause significant harm to unrelated environments or innocent people just trying to survive, and they certainly can't seem to even consider there's a problem when they are obviously biased.
If they rule as if they believe that belonging to a certain cultural group followed by maybe only 20% of the population is the correct way forward and all others are based of moral failings and heresies, then, yeah - maybe they shouldn't be dispensing legal opinions and rulings for the entire country.
This is the Roberts court. An out of touch gathering of Country Club members trying to schmooze and favor those who can reinforce their comfortable world view.
And F*** anything that doesn't belong to their club.

[vapor2]

38. If it walks like a duck.......

[MW67]

39. Political actors?? No way !!

Paid political operative is a more accurate description,they ain't play acting

[dalton99a]

41. Also known as whores

which they are.

[Botany]

42. I'm not a lawyer but the 14th amendment article # 3 explicitly said that Trump could not run again

… and the Roberts’ Court said that it did not say that. No, bush v Gore and Roberts and Alito would not
be on the SCOTUS. Btw how much has your wife taken in John?

[usonian]

44. Not actors.

[IcyPeas]

45. Why were 6 justices invited to dinner with trump/king charles???

Why does Gorsuch go on Fox News

Why was Gorsuch just on Megyn Kelly's show? SERIOUSLY!!!

[tavernier]

46. He's telling us not to believe our lying ears and eyes.

Maybe Kid Rock should put his words to music. The maggots would lap it up.

[dgauss]

47. I think of them more as political puppets than political actors.

Maybe that's the misunderstanding he's referring to?

[angrychair]

48. Says the guy

As well as he is fellow conservative judges, that regularly hangs out with rightwing billionaires trying to reshape the country through the courts.

It's just a coincidence that their decisions perfectly align with Mango Mussolini's agenda and the agenda of the people they regularly associate.

[Bristlecone]

49. F Him. All they do is rule on politically charged issues

[canetoad]

50. The whole abortion issue

Sort of contradicts what you're saying John.

[The Roux Comes First]

51. Sorry, JR, the Fecal Matter Has Been Conspicuously Oozing from you and Your Lying Covert for Years Now

[Scalded Nun]

52. More like political, racist, malfeasant actors

[struggle4progress]

53. "Damn! It's getting so we get called partisan hacks every fuckin time we act like partisan hacks! It's so unfair!"

[rickford66]

54. He said it with a straight face ?

[walkingman]

55. Watch what they do, not what they say. ☮

[Dave Bowman]

56. Yeah well, get glasses Johnny Bob.

[moondust]

57. Hated the VRA since the early 80s?

Why? Doesn't that suggest (racist) opposition to the very idea of addressing centuries of racial discrimination?

Roberts’s animus toward the act, and toward the broader struggle to address centuries of racial discrimination in America, has been in plain sight since he served as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, drafting memos attacking the law and devising legal arguments to undermine it.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/chief-justice-robertss-vendetta-against-voting-rights-act

[Jacson6]

58. Thanks to RW SCOTUS justices...

A raped 11 year old girl in Texas is forced to give birth to a baby.

Enough said, Johnny!

[valleyrogue]

60. Anybody who is Federalist Society is anti-American.

Critics of these hacks know full well what they are.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

61. MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive

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.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

63. Clyburn: "I think Justice Roberts is gonna take his place alongside some other justices, like Taney

Clyburn: "I think Justice Roberts is gonna take his place alongside some other justices, like Taney who gave us the Dred Scott decision"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-05-10T13:41:45.922Z

Twins. History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

— Mark Sumner 🌒 (@devilstower.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:42:14.146Z

6 years ago, I wrote that John Roberts, who craves to be ranked w J Marshall (or CE Hughes or E Warren) as greatest, institutionalist, consensus-building Chief Justice..
...would instead challenge Roger "Dred Scott" Taney as worst + most partisan-hack chief.

Now, no contest. Roberts beats Taney.

— James Fallows (@jfallows.bsky.social) 2026-05-10T16:20:34.318Z

Chief Justice Roberts has spent his entire career trying to destroy the Voting Rights Act. He’s been trying to stop Black voting power since he worked for Reagan’s DOJ.
History will remember him as an enemy of civil rights for all Americans.
Just like CJ Taney, another white supremacist.

— @bells110.bsky.social 2026-05-07T21:55:46.439Z

After 'Shelby County' 13 years ago, I wrote that John Roberts was on track to displace Roger 'Dred Scott' Taney as the Chief Justice who would live in infamy.

It's no contest any more.

Alito is a worse partisan hack, but he never pretended to be anything else. Roberts wanted to be "respected."

— James Fallows (@jfallows.bsky.social) 2026-05-02T16:58:46.980Z

[Mysterian]

64. Lying phony justice says corrupt liars are not liars

Bring back the guillotine for the traitors of the USA.