John Roberts, people are gonna piss on your grave, John Roberts. You're a stain.
this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
447 points (99.6% liked)
politics
29675 readers
2116 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
walks line a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... claims it's a zebra.
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.
Rob, you're a pedophile actor. Please cease breathing now.
SCOTUS told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.
It was its final, most essential command.
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...
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.
Traitor says what?
If it walks like a duck, and quakes like a duck, etc.
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.
So stop acting politically, John.
Well, that's only because the Supreme Court is mostly political actors. Can't see why he's confused.
Well their work sure as fuck isn’t based on objectivity.
Corrupt Gaslighting fuck says what?
"I am not a political actor" - Famous Right Wing Political Actor John Roberts.
John Wilks Booth was a political actor.
This Supreme Courrt is political and open to all bidders.
The costumed fossils are complete detached from reality. Civil religion at its worst. Fucking gross.
I dunno. Might be because most of them and were certainly chosen to be political actors
Sorry couldn't hear you. Could you take drump's tiny little mushroom out of your mouth and try again?
Did it occur him that he could avoid this perception by not making so many political decisions?
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.
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.
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.
It's true that they're not political actors. They're political whores. And they're not even high-priced whores.
The word is 'rightly'
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.
Don't assign a set number of seats. Whenever a justice dies, their seat dies with them.
Add one justice every two years, at the end of the first and third year of the presidential term. Every president gets to add exactly two justices per term. This timing pushes the decision as far away from an election as possible.
To further depoliticize the process, I would formally establish a "line of succession" for the court. This line would start with the chief judges of each of the 13 circuit appeals courts, then continue with every other judge in the appeals courts, in order of seniority.
Everyone in the line of succession has been previously confirmed by the Senate to their appellate court seats. To limit the games the Senate can play, I would not require an additional Senate confirmation if the candidate is one of the first 26 in the line of succession. The president can unilaterally elevate any of those 26 to SCOTUS (but, these are the oldest candidates available. They are at the pinnacle of their careers; they can be expected to serve terms measured in months, not decades. The president is not going to want to name one of these geriatrics.)
If a new justice hasn't been added by the 18th/30th month of the president's term, the next in the line of succession is permanently elevated to SCOTUS. This deadline keeps the appointment process at least 6 months away from an election.
The "line of succession" also suggests a way for the court to be apolitically reconstituted in case of a disaster. If the court falls below 5 members, the next in the line is automatically elevated.
Further, it provides a means for a case to be heard even if all sitting justices are conflicted and compelled to recuse themselves. If fewer than 5 members of the court are eligible to hear a particular case, the next in the line of succession is temporarily elevated for that case. In a case where SCOTUS ethics rules are under scrutiny, the case may be heard entirely by temporary members.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
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)
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.
Oh fuck all the way off you political hack. You’re playing for a very specific team, and that team is not us.
He incorrect.
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.
Bro knows he's facing a political shit storm with whatever the results of the midterms are.
Man, a boy can dream.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Fun fact: no member of the Supreme Court was willing to sign their name to the Bush v. Gore decision. It was instead issued per curiam, "by the court" itself.
That alone says more than enough about what kind of people they are...
load more comments
(2 replies)
Spare us your denial asshole. We are knee deep in the bullshit you have created already.
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.
view more: next ›