Fucking liar, Roberts is.
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
321 points (99.4% liked)
politics
29654 readers
2671 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can someone please remind me who sold out the country to corporate interests and allowed super PACs to exist? Oh yeah, thank Chief Justice Roberts. Go fuck yourself.
Suuure Johnny.
this fucking guy. He is just saying that so his wife can get more multi-million dollar contacts from democrat leaning orgs. The court isn't only partisan, it's illegitimate.
I used to think that we had to add another 4 seats to the SCOTUS, but I no longer believe that. Now I think we need to add 20 seats to the Supreme Court.
We have allowed SCOTUS to remain so small so that one bad-faith president can negatively alter the course of the nation for half a century. We should increase it to 29 or 31, with rolling term limits, so every president gets to appoint a handful, but never enough to throw off the balance to any great degree.
Make it a seat for each state in the union.
nah, that’s what messed up the senate.
Comrade Pickles is right about rolling term limits. I propose 20 year terms, first two years are as a clerk to get them up to speed on SCOTUS procedure and ethics. then 18 as a justice. i haven't decided how we choose the chief justice, maybe russian roulette. none of this "you rule the country the rest of your life" bullshit. Taft would be appalled and he was both President and chief justice. The court is currently far too small. 27 seems about right so like a new justice every year or something someone else do the math. That could make for much of the court clerkship to be future justices. WHAT FUN. If someone dies or retires during their term, there should be enough other justices to fill the court. No replacement is allowed unless the court falls below quorum, or let's say... 14? At which point an emergency session of government is called, the party in power submits 7 new justices and the party out of power submits 6. assuming good faith from both parties (don't start), because forgive the tautology but that's how functional government functions (i'll let someone else figure out mechanisms to prevent bad faith actors i'm only halfway through coffee today) all of the proposed justices will be qualified and impartial, just ideologically different.
I am just calling it the SC Voting Rights Interpretation now, the Act Congress approved has been completely hollowed out. If they want to create laws they should have ran for Congress.
If not political, why political shaped?
Undoing decades of settled law to strip rights from women, minorities, and everyone else. You're damn right we view you as political. You're a disgrace to the law and should be impeached yesterday.
"Settled law" is such a cop out. If there is any ambiguity, any question, the law should be rewritten. Anything "decided" can be "undecided", why take the chance?
Of course they're political, but the legislative should be drafting legislation at a quality that the SC only CAN touch it very lightly.
The whole process is broken, I guess is my point, and SC latitude is a symptom of shitty and lazy legislators.
That's bullshit, there's always room for interpretation of any law. Especially when laws start overlapping and someone has to decide which law takes precedence.
The real failure of the US political system is that voters that were stupid enough to believe that uncompromising is the same as strength. Once bipartisanship collapsed, the only way to get anything done was through the courts because as soon as any law passed someone somewhere sued to stop it. The courts became political because all laws passed through them.
This happened because Republicans realized their actual policies are unpopular and don't work, so they have specifically been stacking courts with conservative judges for decades so an unelected cabal of rich assholes get to decide all the laws in the country.
If it walks, talks and looks like a political shill...
His name will forever represent the most corrupt SCOTUS in history, and he's trying to mitigate that despicable legacy.
Just like PEDOnald will represent the worst president in history - at least so far.
Spare us your denial asshole. We are knee deep in the bullshit you have created already.
The Republican justices thought December was too close to the election to do anything about Texas's gerrymandering that favored white poeple/Republicans, but somehow last week wasn't too close to the election to shoot down Louisiana's changes that boosted minorities. That's pretty clearly policy at work, not the law.
Oh, then give us back voting rights, abortion, and presidential accountability
Sorry, the best they can do is gaslight while they pass more regressive rulings via the shadow docket.
Just a reminder that between his Ivy League connections, his Reagan/Bush services, and Chief Justice Rehnquist's untimely demise, Mr. Non-Political-Actor here went from mere well-placed attorney to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in less than five years, mostly by way of his work on Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Not a political actor, lol.
If you don't want to be seen as political actors, don't act like political actors.
Roberts, in a hot-dog costume, trying to figure out who did this
I often wonder if they believe this themselves, or if they just cynically say crap like this out of contempt for people.
It’s contempt, they all belive they are better than us, that by saying nothing it makes it true. They know they are lying but they are in positions of power that no longer require their honesty. Lying is more lucrative.
Roberts is an enigma to me.
For Alito and Thomas, it's clearly contempt. Roberts seems like he thinks he's somehow doing the right thing?
Or maybe that's just his mind's defense mechanism. Because accepting the reality of what he has done to this country is just too much
They think the republic is already dead. They are playing the sheep for their masters, to live out their lives in imperial splendor as they betray their country and oaths.
Is it true?
Could I really have lost touch with the tenets of this office?
No. it's the citizens who are wrong.
What does he think he’s doing by constantly complaining about this?
Justices definitely consider their words before speaking. What could possibly be the reason beyond letting off steam… repetitively and publicly?
Is it to tamp down public criticism of the court? If so, who cares? It won’t work, and they have lifetime appointments.
Is it out of guilt because the assertion is obviously factually untrue?
Maybe some of these guys just watch way too much Fox News and conservative media. They’ve been airing grievances just like these outlets. LOOKING AT YOU ALITO
How fucking patronising.
The most political Supreme Court justice is trying to claim he's not? He can pound his shadow docket up his ass sideways.
Alito and Thomas are the most political hands down, so far.
Homeboy has been incrementally gutting the voting rights act as part of the Republican agenda for 40+ years.
https://theprogressivemedia.substack.com/p/john-roberts-spent-44-years-killing
Fuck this partisan sack garbler:
Chief Justice John Roberts wrongly says some bullshit that is wrong.
Does anyone still remember that the Supreme Court - which already included a certain Clarence Thomas at the time -ensured during the 2000 election that the votes in Florida would not be recounted, thereby guaranteeing that Bush Jr. would become president?
I would certainly say that this is exactly how a political actor behaves.
Let's also remember the deciding vote on handing the 2000 election to the devil, which lost, was the now lionized Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Notorious indeed. You can draw a straight line from their successful steal of 2000 to 2020 and now.
I think most people have soured a bit on Ginsberg after she refused to retire, only to die under Trump
Oh fuck all the way off you political hack. You’re playing for a very specific team, and that team is not us.
... Perhaps stop acting like them then
Given everything they have done, why pretend anymore? I honestly don't know who they are trying to impress. They know they are succeeding at eroding democracy. Congrats. You're on the team now. So wear your T-shirt.
Roberts is fascinating, he really truly believes he can escape with an intact legacy while simultaneously overseeing the final destruction of the functional democracy that was the US. It kind of speaks to the mentality deep down, they don't really understand the finality and monumentality of their actions, and where it's going to lead us. But his legacy is secure: one of the most destructive men who was ever a part of our Republic.
Bro knows he's facing a political shit storm with whatever the results of the midterms are.
Dems would have to get a supermajority to start removing justices or start doing anything since we know Trump will veto the bills.
load more comments
(1 replies)
ROFL!
Awww, did some nasty journalist say that you volunteer to wear a leash for Trump daily? Diddums. You used to think you were cleverly manipulating the constitution behind the scenes for your own political ends and were being subtle about it, but now everyone says you're his bitch and you know full well he's a moron who shouldn't be in charge of you, so you lost any self respect you ever had because you realised Trump has no less contempt for you than he has for any temporarily useful stupid idiot who swallowed his lies and was used by him to cement power and stroke his own ego.
No one is accusing them of being political actors. That's not how the court system works. The fact that he claims that is an effort to play everyone for fools.
They are however partisan hacks.
They are however partisan hacks.
It's worse than that, they're actively corrupt. Robert's or Alito's Judicial philosophy is as irrelevant as Thomas' racial identity; they believe in getting paid.
Oh my sweet summer child.
I mean, if he actually believes that. Which I don't think he does.
view more: next ›