this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
334 points (99.1% liked)

politics

29727 readers
2714 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In remarks at a judicial conference, Roberts bemoaned what he characterized as the American public’s misconceptions about the Supreme Court.

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.

Roberts is a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which has moved federal law to the right on a number of weighty issues in recent years, such as abortion and gun rights.

The court has also in several cases weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, including in a ruling last week that led to outrage and disappointment on the left.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hux@lemmy.ml 114 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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:

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 103 points 6 days ago

Oh fuck all the way off you political hack. You’re playing for a very specific team, and that team is not us.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 91 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Bro knows he's facing a political shit storm with whatever the results of the midterms are.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 10 points 6 days ago

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 (2 replies)
[–] DJKJuicy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 5 days ago

If they were making judgements based on laws and logic then they would regularly have unanimous decisions.

The fact that for each case that comes before them, it's almost always a split decision down predictable conservative/liberal lines means that Roberts is full of shit.

[–] rangber@lemmy.zip 62 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Given everything they have done, why pretend anymore? I honestly don't know who they are trying to impress.

[–] turtlesareneat@piefed.ca 15 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] WandowsVista@lemmy.world 39 points 6 days ago
[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 10 points 4 days ago

SCOTUS told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.

It was its final, most essential command.

[–] Janx@piefed.social 37 points 6 days ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 38 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

misconceptions held by the American people that he and his colleagues are “political actors” who are making decisions based on policy, not law.

Maybe if they stopped acting like they were making decisions based in political ideology instead of law, the American people might have those opinions...

[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl 5 points 4 days ago

These fuckers are overturning settled law and acts of congress left and right. Not political actors? Bitch the political buck stops at the supreme court that much is clear.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

Traitor says what?

[–] DandomRude@piefed.social 44 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Does anyone still remember that the Supreme Court - which already included a certain Clarence Thomas at the time -ensured during the 2000 election campaign 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world 20 points 5 days ago

Roberts belief that he can salvage the courts reputation is deeply pathetic. He wiped his ass with the law and made the supremes courts corruption even more brazen.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.cafe 29 points 6 days ago (8 children)

His name will forever represent the most corrupt SCOTUS in history, and he's trying to mitigate that despicable legacy.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago

I wonder if he genuinely thinks this. Surely he'd have to if he bothered to say so. I can't imagine a cynical political actor would waste his energy explaining himself to a public that he isn't accountable to. Thomas and Alito for instance don't really say jack shit, because they don't care what you think.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 21 points 5 days ago

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.

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago

Being the leader of the highest tier of the government's judiciary branch makes everything you do or say political, Johnny-Boy.

Is anyone else getting mighty tired of that "I don't do politics" shtick in general? I know I am. Even more so in a time where literal nazis are using it to cover up their ideological praxis.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 30 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

It's true that they're not political actors. They're political whores. And they're not even high-priced whores.

[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 32 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.cafe 19 points 6 days ago (13 children)

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago

Spare us your denial asshole. We are knee deep in the bullshit you have created already.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 6 points 4 days ago

So stop acting politically, John.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago

walks line a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... claims it's a zebra.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

"I am not a political actor" - Famous Right Wing Political Actor John Roberts.

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

If it walks like a duck, and quakes like a duck, etc.

[–] Mantzy81@aussie.zone 13 points 6 days ago

If it walks, talks and looks like a political shill...

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago

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.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago

We know Roberts isnt playing politics. He thinks he's a priest-king who can dictate his own beliefs as inarguable decree.

It would be one thing if he followed the history of the court and was bound by precedent, but letting six functionaries who were specifically asked about abortion and made unambiguous promises to respect it overturn the recognized right of bodily autonomy has made every right Americans enjoy subject to judicial nullification

The only sane thing is to specifically take away judicial supremacy, and restore the unelected academics to a subordinate role deferential to the actually elected branches of our government. Sure, wed essentially give up any hope of free speech or marriage rights or religious liberty being out of the each of Congress, but better a Congress who can be voted out than judges who arent protecting those rights anyway.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

John Wilks Booth was a political actor.

This Supreme Courrt is political and open to all bidders.

[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I often wonder if they believe this themselves, or if they just cynically say crap like this out of contempt for people.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Well their work sure as fuck isn’t based on objectivity.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 9 points 5 days ago

Fucking liar, Roberts is.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 4 points 4 days ago

Corrupt Gaslighting fuck says what?

[–] Bwaz@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Well, that's only because the Supreme Court is mostly political actors. Can't see why he's confused.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Big_Boss_77@fedinsfw.app 8 points 6 days ago

If not political, why political shaped?

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 10 points 6 days ago

Roberts, in a hot-dog costume, trying to figure out who did this

[–] 2piradians@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

Is it true?

Could I really have lost touch with the tenets of this office?

No. it's the citizens who are wrong.

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The court has also in several cases weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, including in a ruling last week that led to outrage and disappointment on the left.

Yep. Figures. Even the fucking Voting Rights Act is a fringe issue now.

I'm so fucking hungry.

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Rob, you're a pedophile actor. Please cease breathing now.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oh, then give us back voting rights, abortion, and presidential accountability

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tacoplease@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

John Roberts, people are gonna piss on your grave, John Roberts. You're a stain.

[–] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (4 children)

I’m upset that I view Roberts as a dude who doesn’t have my balls on his chin.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›