It's too bad that for many of us anything Roberts does, or writes, is under deep suspicion. What are his motives? What is he hoping to get out of it? The majority of current SCOTUS members can no longer be trusted and, quite frankly, it's sad. I read Roberts' take on former chief justice/president Taft with great skepticism.
How unfortunate that the current corrupt court, Roberts included, have denigrated if not destroyed the respect that this branch of government previously enjoyed.
You have become known as John "Taney" Roberts and your legacy will be exactly what you deserve for selling democracy to the highest bidder and for devaluing the declaration that all men are created equal.
Fuck you, John Roberts! Your legacy will be remembered as the Chief Justice who enabled a fascist dictator and watched silently as the United States burned. Fuck you!
Interesting description ('unpacking'?) of Taft as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I'm wondering though, when did Roberts write this piece: just prior to its publication here and now? Or previously? And what is the subtext? Is Roberts inviting the reader, without overtly stating it, to compare his own posture and record as Chief Justice with Taft's and find it favorably analogous? Hmmm 🤔
Yes. Context matters. Motivation matters. Timing matters. In all communication, written or spoken, by anyone, anywhere, any time. Especially when it comes to people who have the power to impact our lives so profoundly -- our family, our life partner, our employer, our elected/ appointed government officials, and, yes, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court.
I'd like to know what attracted Roberts to this particular topic when he has a world of possibilities from which to choose. I'd like some insight into how what he learned while researching and writing this article about Taft might have shaped his thinking and perhaps inform his leadership and his decisions as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That matters in the most enduring of ways that we can imagine as the study of the history of the Supreme Court's landmark decisions proves.
It’s very difficult for me to even put in words how much I loathe John Roberts. He and the conservative legal movement are destroying democracy (or our constitutional republic if you want to be a pedant) at the behest of wealthy and powerful interests. The idea that he receives any praise for being a “moderate” or “impartial” in his decisions is baffling to me.
It is long past time to recognize Originalism, Textualism, and this whole line of “history and tradition” jurisprudence as the invalid and fraudulent theories that they are. This nonsense is just a smokescreen that reactionaries are using to obscure their true goals, namely suppressing voting rights, enshrining a special status for white men and christians, and ensuring the rich can pay to influence public officials.
Presidential immunity? Where on earth did you dig up that rotting concept? What happened to equal justice, without fear or favor? Sounds pretty clear to the rest of us. That decision alone will be the one that ended the legitimacy of your court.
Nice appreciation of Taft, the only person to be president and on the High Court. Taft was a better politician as Chief Justice than he was as president, helping enact needed reforms to the docket and approval for the current building.
I have a disagreement with the piece’s first sentence that Taft is “the only person in the history of our Nation to have served as the head of two branches of the federal government.” Polk served as Speaker of the House and was, to the degree there is one, the head of the legislative branch.
A year after I argued that John Roberts uses institutional legitimacy as a shield for structural transformation, Roberts published an essay explaining why institutional prestige matters: it gives the Court the power to withstand challenges to its authority. No longer are we questioning whether Roberts values legitimacy. He just told us what legitimacy is for. Here’s my piece from April 18, 2025
The irony of John Roberts praising Taft for his more-modest view of Presidential power than his predecessor's.....
It's too bad that for many of us anything Roberts does, or writes, is under deep suspicion. What are his motives? What is he hoping to get out of it? The majority of current SCOTUS members can no longer be trusted and, quite frankly, it's sad. I read Roberts' take on former chief justice/president Taft with great skepticism.
What do you think he’s doing? Skeptical about what?
How unfortunate that the current corrupt court, Roberts included, have denigrated if not destroyed the respect that this branch of government previously enjoyed.
The irony is overwhelming, praising Taft for his contributions to the Supreme Court while Roberts dismantles the institution with a sledgehammer
My thoughts exactly.
You have become known as John "Taney" Roberts and your legacy will be exactly what you deserve for selling democracy to the highest bidder and for devaluing the declaration that all men are created equal.
Fuck you, John Roberts! Your legacy will be remembered as the Chief Justice who enabled a fascist dictator and watched silently as the United States burned. Fuck you!
Why Roberts? Surely someone else has written about Taft without subtle(?) self justification.
An interesting essay. Ironic in that it’s author has presided over so many detrimental decisions.
Expand the court now and make Roberts and all of the other Federalist Society Supreme Court hacks moot!
Not at this moment, but as soon as democrats have the presidency and the senate.
Shame, shame, shame on you. You are nothing, meaningless and less than that. You have nothing to offer.
Interesting description ('unpacking'?) of Taft as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I'm wondering though, when did Roberts write this piece: just prior to its publication here and now? Or previously? And what is the subtext? Is Roberts inviting the reader, without overtly stating it, to compare his own posture and record as Chief Justice with Taft's and find it favorably analogous? Hmmm 🤔
Is there supposed to be some relevance when this or any author of these articles were written? Or the motive?
Yes. Context matters. Motivation matters. Timing matters. In all communication, written or spoken, by anyone, anywhere, any time. Especially when it comes to people who have the power to impact our lives so profoundly -- our family, our life partner, our employer, our elected/ appointed government officials, and, yes, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court.
I'd like to know what attracted Roberts to this particular topic when he has a world of possibilities from which to choose. I'd like some insight into how what he learned while researching and writing this article about Taft might have shaped his thinking and perhaps inform his leadership and his decisions as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That matters in the most enduring of ways that we can imagine as the study of the history of the Supreme Court's landmark decisions proves.
According to a state judge on X yesterday, Roberts discussed writing it months ago.
It’s very difficult for me to even put in words how much I loathe John Roberts. He and the conservative legal movement are destroying democracy (or our constitutional republic if you want to be a pedant) at the behest of wealthy and powerful interests. The idea that he receives any praise for being a “moderate” or “impartial” in his decisions is baffling to me.
It is long past time to recognize Originalism, Textualism, and this whole line of “history and tradition” jurisprudence as the invalid and fraudulent theories that they are. This nonsense is just a smokescreen that reactionaries are using to obscure their true goals, namely suppressing voting rights, enshrining a special status for white men and christians, and ensuring the rich can pay to influence public officials.
Presidential immunity? Where on earth did you dig up that rotting concept? What happened to equal justice, without fear or favor? Sounds pretty clear to the rest of us. That decision alone will be the one that ended the legitimacy of your court.
This reads like an AI report for a high school history class. The narrative is patriarchal.
Nice appreciation of Taft, the only person to be president and on the High Court. Taft was a better politician as Chief Justice than he was as president, helping enact needed reforms to the docket and approval for the current building.
I have a disagreement with the piece’s first sentence that Taft is “the only person in the history of our Nation to have served as the head of two branches of the federal government.” Polk served as Speaker of the House and was, to the degree there is one, the head of the legislative branch.
A decent writer would have known and mentioned this, but Roberts is not that.
A year after I argued that John Roberts uses institutional legitimacy as a shield for structural transformation, Roberts published an essay explaining why institutional prestige matters: it gives the Court the power to withstand challenges to its authority. No longer are we questioning whether Roberts values legitimacy. He just told us what legitimacy is for. Here’s my piece from April 18, 2025