That was Chief Justice Roberts at a speech earlier this week.
More from The NY Times:
But he added that the outside criticism did not affect the court’s independence. “A lot of the criticism is based on a misperception,” he said.
People often note that the court is made up of five Republican appointees and four Democratic ones, he said, and they expect predictable 5-to-4 decisions along those lines.
“Last year,” he said, “we had 19 5-to-4 decisions, and seven of them were divided with the five justices appointed by Republican presidents in the majority and the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents in dissent.”
“That shouldn’t come as a surprise because we don’t go about our work in a political manner,” he said.
The last term’s two biggest decisions, on partisan gerrymandering and adding a question on citizenship to the census, both featured controlling opinions written by the chief justice, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. Both were closely divided. In the gerrymandering case, Chief Justice Roberts voted with the other Republican appointees. In the key part of the census decision, he voted with the four Democratic appointees.
This was a funny exchange:
And, of course, Justice Ginsburg brings her experience as a rock star,” he said.
Asked if he could best Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at push-ups, he said that would not be a fair fight.
“She has so much less to push up,” he said. “I can comfortably say that I can bench press her weight and she can’t bench press mine.”
Asked for his favorite classic rock band, Chief Justice Roberts, 64, picked the Byrds, saying he had seen them not long ago. “I’ve never been in a room with more 65-year-old men with ponytails,” he said.
He also endorsed the decision to award the Nobel Prize in Literature to Bob Dylan, an observation that was greeted by applause.
11 comments:
Almost half of the 5-4 decisions were perfectly split along political party lines and the Chief doesn't think that is significant and does not think such a statistically significant split demonstrates that the Court is the product of partisan politics?
OMG we are in deep _____!
Your Honor as Exhibit A we enter Bush v. Gore. And we rest.
You libs are so dumb, he's trolling you. This is why we always will own you.
10:08
Well, will you look at that! A conservative being condescending!
What a shock!
Maybe Roberts ought to read (or re-read) history of the Supreme Court written by his mentor. He might learn a thing or two. Rehnquist points out that every single political dispute in American history has wound its way to the steps of the Supreme Court. Be it the banking kerfuffle under Jackson (“Mr. Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it”), slavery, federal income taxation, free speech in WWI, the New Deal, Japanese internment, racial segregation, the steel mills, civil rights, Vietnam, Watergate, elections, terrorism, abortion, and on and on and on. Roberts is a brilliant man (Rehnquist said he was the best lawyer who ever appeared in front of him) and an even more brilliant political operative. Anything he says is to be taken in that vein.
Bush v Gore was 7-2
Bush v. Gore was 7-2 (Souter and Breyer) on the EP question and 5-4 on the alternative remedy issue.
Souter was a Bush appointee.
But as Judge William Pryor would often say "No more Souters."
Stevens also Republican LOL
Heck, Roberts saved Obamacare. LOL
Post a Comment