i went to law school and while i didn't ever end up practicing law, constitutional law was my favorite class. it felt most rooted in concepts that i already understood. i greatly respected my professor who said something like, "i'm not here to get you to think like me, agree with me, or agree with the decisions. i'm here to help you to understand why the court decided the way they did, and to understand the dissent, too, even though it's not law."
we were called on randomly via the socratic method, and the young woman called on for roe v. wade said something like, "oh, no. i'm not the right person to talk about this because i think it's wrong." our professor answered, "that's why you're exactly the right person to answer this."
i share his philosophy as background for why i emailed him a few days after the 2016 election and asked for his thoughts. one thing he said was, "Second, there is some hope that Justice Roberts understands that if the Court becomes a rubber stamp for right wing ideologues, it will be discredited as a principled institution."
i've kept that in my mind all these years, and especially over the last few years as roberts has changed his approach.
no, i don't think so. sharon can correct me if i'm wrong, but our vote is the biggest power we wield. some judges are elected, then judges are appointed to the federal judiciary (sometimes these appointed judges were previously elected, sometimes not — based on jurisdiction's rules, etc.), and then those folks create the pool that the supreme court is pulled from. that's several degrees from our vote, but our vote starts it all.
it's been upsetting and infuriating to watch.
one other side note from my law school experience is that several classmates got to go to the supreme court to watch a professor argue their case. not only was this during clarence thomas's silent period, but according to all of them, clarence thomas fell asleep.
the system as a whole needs to change, but whether or not the change is actually legitimate, i think for it to feel legitimate to the biggest number of people, it needs to be a bipartisan effort. and i don't foresee that happening here, even if change eventually comes. i would love to be wrong! and i'm curious to see other people's thoughts on this.
There are 'checks-n-balances' built into the Constitution that allow for recourse including the Congressional check of impeachment of federal judges/justices. However, this is extremely rare, and virtually non-existent with Supreme Court justices. There is, of course, the indirect 'check' of the ballot box. Elected officials--beginning with the president, and ultimately the Senate--are responsible for appointing, then approving/placing federal judges to/on the bench. This election cycle may prove to be one of--if not *the*--first times in our history that a presidential candidate loses on the basis of his Supreme Court appointments. (e.g. "Roe"). There is reason to believe that Justices Alito, Thomas, and even Roberts will retire in the next four-to-eight years. If we elect Harris in November...historians and political scientists will likely conclude that the Supreme Court was the 'issue' that moved the needle. Of course, if Harris is elected, the elderly justices will probably try to 'hold on' in hopes of outlasting her term. If this becomes the situation--a Harris re-election may hinge on the same issue.
I am so disappointed that members of the Supreme court have become so corrupt, taking bribes, flying upside down flags and displaying so much partisanship in their rulings. This last term was a disaster. Giving a President absolute immunity is a terrifying ruling and goes against the intent of the Constitution. If there weren’t many, many other reasons for me to vote against Donald Trump, the possibility that he could appoint two more Supreme Court Justices would be reason enough for me to vote against him.
After a certain age, the brain deteriorates in the ability to show restraint and behaves somewhat like a teenager. Justice Roberts may no longer have the ability to regulate his actions based on his feelings. This is an argument for SCOTUS term limits.
Love these! My question is this: why the shift? Do justices ever give personal insight into these things? I’m betting not. It concerns me that we’re peeking through the veil at these Justices who are preserved both by and in an institution that is deeply, deeply flawed. And I think flawed institutions bring out the worst in us if they don’t have accountability, transparency and something shorter than a lifetime appointment.
Never heard of Leo. Thanks for the link. Still don’t understand why these rich folks are so right wing and why very smart people (6 SC justices) think this way too. I do not get it.
I'll acknowledge that not all rich folks are right wing. However, it does seem that for the very rich, who define themselves by their wealth, it makes sense that they would be right-wing, because right-wing policies tend to be the most favorable towards maintaining the wealth of the rich and endowing rich folks with more power. I'm not saying this is always the driver, just drawing a connection between their distinctive wealth and one party's support of their wealth.
You're welcome. I first heard about him in the book The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America. He's got his unelected hands all over politics. It's infuriating how much one person who was not chosen by the people in any way and operates so much in the shadows can have so much influence on democratic (little d) politics. He's certainly not the only one; it's a systematic issue. But learning about how he works really offered me some insight into how the dark money and under the radar influencers get their work done. Sharon often talks about how US politics/government work on paper. When she's ready to also talk about how it "really" works behind the scenes, this guy's name will be all over it! HA.
I've been a 'moderate' Democrat my entire adult life. Pre-programmed to dislike any Republican president's SCOTUS nominee at the outset -- a couple of years after his confirmation -- Roberts proved the exception. Until recently, while I disagreed with many of his opinions, I was able to understand the premises with regard to his commitment to 'precedent.' It is disheartening that he has evidently "given up", and succumbed to the activist Trump associates on the court. For a Chief Justice who was once guided by his aspirations of "legacy", I'm afraid it is tarnished beyond repair. Abandoning his original ideals of leading a staunchly non-partisan court, he will now go down as one of the weakest Chief's in the court's history.
Here are thoughts I have had regarding the issue of judges and the ability to be completely unbiased. Although each judge takes an oath to be impartial, they are all human and therefore not perfect. Differences in backgrounds and life experiences definitely play a role. I have often wondered if we see the court’s decisions as fair and unbiased based on our own personal ideologies. Do we tend to agree more if we are more conservative with the decisions of the most recent court? Did we agree more when the majority of the justices more closely aligned with our more liberal leaning personal beliefs? Take for example when Justice Ketanji Brown was being questioned prior to her appointment on the definition of a “woman”. Some folks probably found her answer to be absolutely acceptable while others found them to be unacceptable. I cannot name one person past or present that is without bias. It’s just a fact of life for each of us, SCJ’s included.
Yes, each of us has personal bias. It's human. However, it is imperative that Judges at all levels have the ability (and integrity) to put personal bias aside with regard to Constitutional law. The Supreme Court's constitutionally explicit responsibility is to "interpret" the Constitution without regard to one's individual beliefs or biases. If/when a justice's personal bias conflicts with the Constitution, they MUST defer to the Constitution. We have many examples--including Roberts' earlier opinions--where justices abandoned their personal bias in favor of statutory and precedent law...because that's the responsibility with which they are charged. IF an individual would prefer to promote their personal beliefs/biases at the federal government level, they should run for congress or president. However, once they accept a position on the court--their ONLY allegiance is to The Constitution of the United States.
WHY does 🍊😭👶 get to run for the highest office in the land when any other person who is a convicted felon isn’t even allowed to work in the White House??
it feels incongruous, but i think this is because the framers didn't want politicians to keep their rivals out of office via made-up charges. i don't think they foresaw the circumstances we're facing now, but i understand and agree with their original intent.
Sharon, I appreciate your articles on Justices Thomas and Roberts. When I was in high school, I remember reading about the Dredd Scott decision and thinking how could the court get it so wrong! I have no confidence in the theories regarding precedents power in the law, nor the clearly swing to the extreme conservative views. Hopefully, the pendulum will swing to a more...(I don't know what) bench. But, I don't hold out hope for the next 10 years. The appointments to the lower courts worry me too.
The overwhelming consensus among legal scholars is that the "Dred Scott" decision was the worst decision in the Court's history. The primary reason for this infamous distinction is that the Court made a decision first--then searched high-and-low for a legal theory to support that decision. And, that legal 'theory' came out of left field. I now wonder if--in the minds of scholars--the "Dobbs" decision will overtake "Dred Scott" as the worst. It is apparent that the Court's methodology was the same with "Dobbs" as with "Dred Scott", however, while the precedent cited in the "Dred Scott" decision was from 'left field'...it was still based on U.S. law. "Dobbs", on the other hand was based on precedented theory outlined in British Common Law. (???). Forget 'left field.' That's not even in the ballpark.
I was struck by this quote by Roberts: "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them… They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”
It appears we have come to a time now when people not only know the names of the umpires but they are coming to the game to watch what the umpires do... I'm curious if Roberts has addressed this turn of events and how he feels about it given his prior statement.
Another important essay; thank you so much for the time and energy you put into giving us the facts. Period.
At sixty-one, I feel I’ve had a front row seat to the evolution of the Supreme Court. I grew up in a strongly conservative family, and I remember my father talking, in the late 70s/early 80s, about how the Supreme Court was the “leveler” for man’s tendency to make our country lean one way or the other. Almost like our better angle.
I don’t see that any more, and if my father were alive I think he’d agree with me.
I feel like every time someone is nominated, we are fed the line that supreme court justices should not be swayed by personal (read religious) views, yet here we are.
Another reader brought up the corruption (gifts/trips), and I don’t understand how that is allowed to be ok. Under the circumstances, they should be impeached!!!! But if they oversee themselves, they are as likely to correct that as our senators and reps are likely to put term limits on their careers representing us. It’s a gig too good to patrol.
I wish the men and women leading us/setting the standard were driven to be our better angles but, it would seem, many are driven by greed and fame - exactly the opposite.
You say during the Reagan years Roberts “solidified his view on many issues during this time, including affirmative action, voting rights, and abortion.” I guess I get what his stances on abortion and affirmative action would be, but how would you describe his voting rights stance? (Guessing based on the cases you cite: giving voting rights to corporations and taking it from ordinary - marginalized - citizens?) But why?
You might say he was “radicalized” by Reagan, and when the other far-right justices joined him, he felt comfortable being himself. You know, like how a bully feels empowered by his “gang.”
I’m enjoying your series on the Supreme Court Justices. After reading this article on John Roberts, I do wonder what happened to cause him to lean into the partisanship we’ve seen in the decisions from the last term. Perhaps the right-leaning agenda of Project 2025 has already started being implemented through these decisions and Roberts decided to be a major role player in changing how America works instead of upholding the traditional institution of The Supreme Court.
I have thought for the past several years that Roberts played a moderate voice on the Court. That ship has sailed. There were several opinions he was on the majority side from this last session (i.e. the Trump immunity ruling) that left me perplexed and scratching my head. I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the Constitution and from a common sense perspective it seems like he's really stretching beyond basic logic in his writings of how the Constitution should be interpreted.
i went to law school and while i didn't ever end up practicing law, constitutional law was my favorite class. it felt most rooted in concepts that i already understood. i greatly respected my professor who said something like, "i'm not here to get you to think like me, agree with me, or agree with the decisions. i'm here to help you to understand why the court decided the way they did, and to understand the dissent, too, even though it's not law."
we were called on randomly via the socratic method, and the young woman called on for roe v. wade said something like, "oh, no. i'm not the right person to talk about this because i think it's wrong." our professor answered, "that's why you're exactly the right person to answer this."
i share his philosophy as background for why i emailed him a few days after the 2016 election and asked for his thoughts. one thing he said was, "Second, there is some hope that Justice Roberts understands that if the Court becomes a rubber stamp for right wing ideologues, it will be discredited as a principled institution."
i've kept that in my mind all these years, and especially over the last few years as roberts has changed his approach.
Do we as citizens have any recourse to legally influence the judges to be fair and impartial?
no, i don't think so. sharon can correct me if i'm wrong, but our vote is the biggest power we wield. some judges are elected, then judges are appointed to the federal judiciary (sometimes these appointed judges were previously elected, sometimes not — based on jurisdiction's rules, etc.), and then those folks create the pool that the supreme court is pulled from. that's several degrees from our vote, but our vote starts it all.
it's been upsetting and infuriating to watch.
one other side note from my law school experience is that several classmates got to go to the supreme court to watch a professor argue their case. not only was this during clarence thomas's silent period, but according to all of them, clarence thomas fell asleep.
the system as a whole needs to change, but whether or not the change is actually legitimate, i think for it to feel legitimate to the biggest number of people, it needs to be a bipartisan effort. and i don't foresee that happening here, even if change eventually comes. i would love to be wrong! and i'm curious to see other people's thoughts on this.
There are 'checks-n-balances' built into the Constitution that allow for recourse including the Congressional check of impeachment of federal judges/justices. However, this is extremely rare, and virtually non-existent with Supreme Court justices. There is, of course, the indirect 'check' of the ballot box. Elected officials--beginning with the president, and ultimately the Senate--are responsible for appointing, then approving/placing federal judges to/on the bench. This election cycle may prove to be one of--if not *the*--first times in our history that a presidential candidate loses on the basis of his Supreme Court appointments. (e.g. "Roe"). There is reason to believe that Justices Alito, Thomas, and even Roberts will retire in the next four-to-eight years. If we elect Harris in November...historians and political scientists will likely conclude that the Supreme Court was the 'issue' that moved the needle. Of course, if Harris is elected, the elderly justices will probably try to 'hold on' in hopes of outlasting her term. If this becomes the situation--a Harris re-election may hinge on the same issue.
I am so disappointed that members of the Supreme court have become so corrupt, taking bribes, flying upside down flags and displaying so much partisanship in their rulings. This last term was a disaster. Giving a President absolute immunity is a terrifying ruling and goes against the intent of the Constitution. If there weren’t many, many other reasons for me to vote against Donald Trump, the possibility that he could appoint two more Supreme Court Justices would be reason enough for me to vote against him.
Thank you so much for this! The partisanship on the court is so upsetting
After a certain age, the brain deteriorates in the ability to show restraint and behaves somewhat like a teenager. Justice Roberts may no longer have the ability to regulate his actions based on his feelings. This is an argument for SCOTUS term limits.
This. So much. I'm sorry but I believe that in most cases past around 65, the older you get, the less intellectually sound you become.
Hadn't thought of it that way. Good point.
Love these! My question is this: why the shift? Do justices ever give personal insight into these things? I’m betting not. It concerns me that we’re peeking through the veil at these Justices who are preserved both by and in an institution that is deeply, deeply flawed. And I think flawed institutions bring out the worst in us if they don’t have accountability, transparency and something shorter than a lifetime appointment.
I suspect Leonard Leo is behind it in some capacity. Pressure. Bribery. Something. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/12/leonard-leo-conservative-groups-funding
Never heard of Leo. Thanks for the link. Still don’t understand why these rich folks are so right wing and why very smart people (6 SC justices) think this way too. I do not get it.
I'll acknowledge that not all rich folks are right wing. However, it does seem that for the very rich, who define themselves by their wealth, it makes sense that they would be right-wing, because right-wing policies tend to be the most favorable towards maintaining the wealth of the rich and endowing rich folks with more power. I'm not saying this is always the driver, just drawing a connection between their distinctive wealth and one party's support of their wealth.
Wow, thanks for this link. Interesting.
You're welcome. I first heard about him in the book The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America. He's got his unelected hands all over politics. It's infuriating how much one person who was not chosen by the people in any way and operates so much in the shadows can have so much influence on democratic (little d) politics. He's certainly not the only one; it's a systematic issue. But learning about how he works really offered me some insight into how the dark money and under the radar influencers get their work done. Sharon often talks about how US politics/government work on paper. When she's ready to also talk about how it "really" works behind the scenes, this guy's name will be all over it! HA.
I've been a 'moderate' Democrat my entire adult life. Pre-programmed to dislike any Republican president's SCOTUS nominee at the outset -- a couple of years after his confirmation -- Roberts proved the exception. Until recently, while I disagreed with many of his opinions, I was able to understand the premises with regard to his commitment to 'precedent.' It is disheartening that he has evidently "given up", and succumbed to the activist Trump associates on the court. For a Chief Justice who was once guided by his aspirations of "legacy", I'm afraid it is tarnished beyond repair. Abandoning his original ideals of leading a staunchly non-partisan court, he will now go down as one of the weakest Chief's in the court's history.
Here are thoughts I have had regarding the issue of judges and the ability to be completely unbiased. Although each judge takes an oath to be impartial, they are all human and therefore not perfect. Differences in backgrounds and life experiences definitely play a role. I have often wondered if we see the court’s decisions as fair and unbiased based on our own personal ideologies. Do we tend to agree more if we are more conservative with the decisions of the most recent court? Did we agree more when the majority of the justices more closely aligned with our more liberal leaning personal beliefs? Take for example when Justice Ketanji Brown was being questioned prior to her appointment on the definition of a “woman”. Some folks probably found her answer to be absolutely acceptable while others found them to be unacceptable. I cannot name one person past or present that is without bias. It’s just a fact of life for each of us, SCJ’s included.
Yes, each of us has personal bias. It's human. However, it is imperative that Judges at all levels have the ability (and integrity) to put personal bias aside with regard to Constitutional law. The Supreme Court's constitutionally explicit responsibility is to "interpret" the Constitution without regard to one's individual beliefs or biases. If/when a justice's personal bias conflicts with the Constitution, they MUST defer to the Constitution. We have many examples--including Roberts' earlier opinions--where justices abandoned their personal bias in favor of statutory and precedent law...because that's the responsibility with which they are charged. IF an individual would prefer to promote their personal beliefs/biases at the federal government level, they should run for congress or president. However, once they accept a position on the court--their ONLY allegiance is to The Constitution of the United States.
WHY does 🍊😭👶 get to run for the highest office in the land when any other person who is a convicted felon isn’t even allowed to work in the White House??
it feels incongruous, but i think this is because the framers didn't want politicians to keep their rivals out of office via made-up charges. i don't think they foresaw the circumstances we're facing now, but i understand and agree with their original intent.
Sharon, I appreciate your articles on Justices Thomas and Roberts. When I was in high school, I remember reading about the Dredd Scott decision and thinking how could the court get it so wrong! I have no confidence in the theories regarding precedents power in the law, nor the clearly swing to the extreme conservative views. Hopefully, the pendulum will swing to a more...(I don't know what) bench. But, I don't hold out hope for the next 10 years. The appointments to the lower courts worry me too.
The overwhelming consensus among legal scholars is that the "Dred Scott" decision was the worst decision in the Court's history. The primary reason for this infamous distinction is that the Court made a decision first--then searched high-and-low for a legal theory to support that decision. And, that legal 'theory' came out of left field. I now wonder if--in the minds of scholars--the "Dobbs" decision will overtake "Dred Scott" as the worst. It is apparent that the Court's methodology was the same with "Dobbs" as with "Dred Scott", however, while the precedent cited in the "Dred Scott" decision was from 'left field'...it was still based on U.S. law. "Dobbs", on the other hand was based on precedented theory outlined in British Common Law. (???). Forget 'left field.' That's not even in the ballpark.
I was struck by this quote by Roberts: "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them… They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”
It appears we have come to a time now when people not only know the names of the umpires but they are coming to the game to watch what the umpires do... I'm curious if Roberts has addressed this turn of events and how he feels about it given his prior statement.
Another important essay; thank you so much for the time and energy you put into giving us the facts. Period.
At sixty-one, I feel I’ve had a front row seat to the evolution of the Supreme Court. I grew up in a strongly conservative family, and I remember my father talking, in the late 70s/early 80s, about how the Supreme Court was the “leveler” for man’s tendency to make our country lean one way or the other. Almost like our better angle.
I don’t see that any more, and if my father were alive I think he’d agree with me.
I feel like every time someone is nominated, we are fed the line that supreme court justices should not be swayed by personal (read religious) views, yet here we are.
Another reader brought up the corruption (gifts/trips), and I don’t understand how that is allowed to be ok. Under the circumstances, they should be impeached!!!! But if they oversee themselves, they are as likely to correct that as our senators and reps are likely to put term limits on their careers representing us. It’s a gig too good to patrol.
I wish the men and women leading us/setting the standard were driven to be our better angles but, it would seem, many are driven by greed and fame - exactly the opposite.
Thank you again for all you do.
I’m very disappointed in how he’s changed. Part of the reason the SC is not held in high regard.
You say during the Reagan years Roberts “solidified his view on many issues during this time, including affirmative action, voting rights, and abortion.” I guess I get what his stances on abortion and affirmative action would be, but how would you describe his voting rights stance? (Guessing based on the cases you cite: giving voting rights to corporations and taking it from ordinary - marginalized - citizens?) But why?
You might say he was “radicalized” by Reagan, and when the other far-right justices joined him, he felt comfortable being himself. You know, like how a bully feels empowered by his “gang.”
I’m enjoying your series on the Supreme Court Justices. After reading this article on John Roberts, I do wonder what happened to cause him to lean into the partisanship we’ve seen in the decisions from the last term. Perhaps the right-leaning agenda of Project 2025 has already started being implemented through these decisions and Roberts decided to be a major role player in changing how America works instead of upholding the traditional institution of The Supreme Court.
I have thought for the past several years that Roberts played a moderate voice on the Court. That ship has sailed. There were several opinions he was on the majority side from this last session (i.e. the Trump immunity ruling) that left me perplexed and scratching my head. I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the Constitution and from a common sense perspective it seems like he's really stretching beyond basic logic in his writings of how the Constitution should be interpreted.