236
John Roberts insists supreme court not ‘political’ after Trump-friendly rulings
(www.theguardian.com)
🤣
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
236 points (98.4% liked)
News
37562 readers
1842 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I can't figure out who said it first to cite it, but there's a saying that goes:
There are two genders: male and political.
Two races: white and political.
Two sexual orientations: straight and political.
Well, for Roberts, there are two kinds of SCOTUS decisions: the ones he agrees with and "political."
Texas gerrymandering case that would benefit Democrats in December: even though the map is unconstitutional we can't change the map, it's too close to an election.
Louisiana gerrymandering case this month that would benefit Republicans: the map must change because it's unconstitutional!
John Roberts: We'Re NoT PoLiTiCaL!
....
Overturning the VRA was clearly political, and clearly done because republicans are losing.
Hope he gets flushed like the squeaky little shit he is.
In this case, John Roberts and company decided to issue the judgement immediately over the objection of the losing party. This move seemingly facilitates Louisiana's effort to switch maps even after voting has already started.
Meanwhile, just 2-3 years ago, Roberts said that Alabama had to continue using illegal maps because we couldn't disrupt an election cycle that was less than 6 months away. Just a few months ago, this court said that Texas can't be forced to change maps 4 months before election.
The only real distinguishing principle that you could use to predict these decisions is which political party benefits from the decision.
Even if the VRA decision had some principled reasoning on the merits, all of this posturing on the timelines is clearly nakedly partisan.
All that, too, yeah.
though I'd state that the VRA had not only been good law, but settled as good law in the courts. Like, at this point, I wouldn't be shocked if they decided the 13th amendment was something to be overturned.
This is the most corrupt, illegitimate, and down right treasonous court there has ever been in the history of the U.S.
John Roberts gaslights nation from the supreme court.
No no we're not partisan you're just looking at it wrong. Not like we twisted our arguments and disregard any precedent so our donors...I mean fellow citizens have proper rulings. Oh nice RV Clearance I hope I get the upgraded one.
Holy crap that RV was worth $270k in 1999? Damn.....and that long ago. I hadn't really read up on the story I thought the RV thing was more recent and well not as much as my townhouse was 10 years ago.
Embarrassment to the legal profession.
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining
The Supreme Court is illegitimate
MFW me and my chums get sweet cars and cash money in exchange for making the world a worse place to live
Anyone who still thinks democracy is still even slightly alive in the USA is delusional.
the midterms and what happens after that will be a test of that but I wouldn't declare it dead yet. Just like recent events have shown Orban did not manage to kill Hungary's democracy in his 16 years of power.
At the same time Trump and the Republicans are certainly moving much faster than Orban was so I'm definitely not saying it will take as long as that if they manage to finish the job.
They have already thrown out the results of a primary because they don't like them. They're redistricting like crazy to their own benefit right now. They've already clawed back decades of voter equality laws.
The midterms are already completely compromised and their outcome is already absolute bullshit.
No, it's dead.
Democracy isn't dead even when the system has been gamed to an extent if there's still a way to win even unfair elections. Hungary is a very recent example of that. Poland is another from a few years back. It'll be dead if they ever get to a point where it's like Russia and the results are that in every election Putin gets a 99% victory but until they do elections are a viable way to fight back.
HAhahahahaha.
He's either lying to himself, or just lying to us, but there's nothing about this court that's apolitical.
They must know what they're doing because they're engaging in acts that are clearly exceptional in the history of the court.
Cool story bro.
John Roberts can be proud of his legacy, that he destroyed the American Empire and eroded the rule of law from the top down.
Yep, his legacy is magna carta levels of fuckery. It will be in history books forever.
He lyin
H~2~O molecule insists water isn't wet after torrential storm.
Roberts should just accept that his court is one of the three pillars in the collapse of the US into a middle power in the next 25 years.
Maybe if I were a legal scholar I'd be able to recall a historical Supreme Court that's done more damage to the democratic process than the Roberts court, but I'm not so I can't.
This idiot is high on his own supply
Every single photo of Queef Justass Roberts looks like he fears for his life. Good. May he always have a reason to look over his shoulder for the rest of his miserable life.
This is one of those silly little games. When your entire framework for analysis depends on certain political principals, you can then be coy and pretend that the results that follow are not political, because after all they simply follow with impeccable legal reasoning from a closely held judicial philosophy. Of course, where do those closely held judicial philosophies come from? Why, the judge's instincts about policy priorities, their reaction to the flow of Constitutional Law as they studied it or, in the case of Thomas, what Harlan Crow pays him to think. In the case of someone like Roberts, you're playing the long game so being disciplined about how you apply your framework means Trump only get 90% of what he wants and therefore you can say shit like "we're not political" with a straight face.
To be fair, all sides have agendas that inform their thinking. Some agendas are just way more evil than others.
At this point I think they've pretty much abandoned any trappings that they were just following a judicial philosophy (that just happened to be good for conservative politics). Their recent rulings don't have a consistent philosophy other than "Republicans should win". Precedent doesn't matter, their own attestations don't matter, originalism doesn't matter. They'll rule the same basic case two ways if one is brought by Republicans and the other Democrats.
Remember the "major questions doctrine" they invented so they can decide the text of laws don't matter if the result is a big change? That seems to be MIA when Trump does wild stuff by executive order alone. Now it's all just deferring to the executive.