Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics

“Inappropriate Political Influence”: Chief Justice John Roberts Responds to Threats Against the Court

Chief Justice John Roberts used his year-end report on New Year’s Eve to denounce the threats being made against the Court and its members by Democratic politicians and groups, including threats to pack the Court to force an immediate liberal majority. Roberts referred to such threats as efforts to exercise “inappropriate political influence” on the Court in contravention of our constitutional values and traditions.

We have been discussing the ramped up threats from Democratic leaders that the Court will either vote with the liberal justices on key issues or face “consequences,” including court packing.  Recently, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), a former law professor, became the latest to voice such reckless views.

What Democratic members are demanding is raw court packing to add four members to the Court to give liberals an instant majority — a movement denounced by figures like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.

Last year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority.  This follows threats from various Democratic members that conservative justices had better vote with liberal colleagues . . . or else.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., recently issued a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or face a “revolution.”  Sen. Richard Blumenthal previously warned the Supreme Court that, if it continued to issue conservative rulings or “chip away at Roe v Wade,” it would trigger “a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

For her part, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioned the whole institution’s value if it is not going to vote consistently with her views and those of the Democratic Party: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” Warren seems to be channeling more AOC than FDR. Roosevelt at least tried to hide his reckless desire to pack the Court by pushing an age-based rule. It was uniquely stupid. The bill would have allowed Roosevelt to add up to six justices for every member who is over 70 years old. Warren, like AOC, wants the Democratic base to know that she is pushing a pure, outcome-changing court packing scheme without even the pretense of a neutral rule.

Despite the fact that the Court has more often voted on non-ideological lines (and regularly issued unanimous decisions), Warren denounced the Court as an “extremist” body that has “threatened, or outright dismantled, fundamental rights in this country.” Those “fundamental” values do not apparently include judicial independence.

Now Roberts appears to have responded. His report is striking in its measured and deliberative tone in comparison to the often reckless rhetoric of these politicians. He waited to address the year in review for his court and the 107 district and appeals courts across the country. However, he included the following lines that are clearly directed toward Congress and extreme Democratic groups like Demand Justice:

“Decisional independence is essential to due process, promoting impartial decision-making, free from political or other extraneous influence. The Judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence and is crucial to preserving public trust in its work as a separate and co-equal branch of government.”

The criticism comes after new polling shows that Roberts is the most popular government official in the country, a fact that led some on the left to express almost apocalyptic alarm.

He is not the only justice who is speaking out to blunt the attacks on the Court. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer chaffed at the claim that this is a “conservative” court and noted “The chief justice frequently speaks on this subject as well and says, no, no: we don’t look at our rulings from the point of view of our personal ideology.”

Justice Thomas criticized those who seem intent on diminishing the authority or respect for the Court: “the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference…They think you become like a politician. That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently told an audience that “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

However, as discussed in my Hill column, the attacks are likely to increase in this key election year with so many major decisions ticking away on the Court docket. The type of demagoguery denounced by Chief Justice Roberts is now going mainstream with our leaders, the media, and various advocacy groups. Yet, Democratic strategists are finding that selling court packing and attacking justices is not resonating outside of the same 30 percent of voters on the left. Instead, many view what is “dire for democracy” is the effort to destroy one of the core institutions in our constitutional system.

133 thoughts on ““Inappropriate Political Influence”: Chief Justice John Roberts Responds to Threats Against the Court”

  1. Leftists are the bigoted, thuggish, lying, self-aggrandizing racist thieves of our lives, our liberties, our freedoms, our vote and our country.

    1. They are despots illicitly imposing dictatorship.

      How did they nullify the Constitution and Bill of Rights and obtain any power at all, much less the power to forcibly impose Karl Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat”?

      “Crazy Abe” Lincoln stole it, his socialist successors codified that criminal usurpation, and modern communists reinforced it by purchasing the votes of the “poor” and unassimilable minorities, which produce a “discordant intermixture,” paying them infinite amounts of “largesse from the public treasury” as generational welfare, food stamps, public housing, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HUD, HHS, etc., etc., etc., and by conducting a mass invasion of avaricious, parasitic, dependent, illegal alien foreigners. LBJ paid them so much in

      They taxed and stole your money to buy the loyalty of the freeloading, dependent, invading, illegal alien parasites.

      Why do we let them?

      George Washington et al. stopped suffering the tyrannical oppression of monarchical dictatorship and told them all to go —- off!

      These communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are extremely upset because they have no power or authority to tell everyone what to do as America persists under the dominion of the
      Constitution and Bill of Rights which provide individual rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities, while it severely limits and restricts the infinitesimal power of government.

      Americans are free and that means they are free to make their own healthcare, and every other type, decisions.

      Hopefully they realize it before it is too late.
      __________________________________

      “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  2. John Roberts, singlehandedly, imposed the illegal (Obama) mandate. He practically worked hand in hand with Obama’s socialist lawyers to punish American citizens for non compliance. Roberts is a feckless banner flapping obediently in the political winds.

    1. Agreed Roberts is indulging in Kabuki theater to emit an appearance of judicial independence. Roberts thoroughly sold out during the obamma years. He has hardly done different since except be a cog for the establishment all the same. An establishment that actively seeks end runs around and to nullify the constitution.

  3. A Supreme Court that believes that some racial groups are entitled to benefits in education and employment at the expense of other racial groups, and seriously thinks it has the right to decide whether 50% of the population should be forced into unwanted procreation, has no legitimate function.

    2. NO ONE is “FORCED into unwanted procreation”. There are any number of inexpensive precautions that may be taken.

      1. “NO ONE is ‘FORCED into unwanted procreation’.”

        What, then, would you call the attempts to criminalize abortion — suggestions?

  5. “‘Inappropriate Political Influence’: Chief Justice John Roberts Responds to Threats Against the Court”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    This is some kind of grand joke or pathological fatuity on the part of Chief Justice John Roberts.

    Roberts and the Justices of the Supreme Court have exerted “inappropriate political influence” and perpetrated “threats” against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and America for far too long.

    Based on personal beliefs, these corrupt biased ideologues have deliberately and willfully failed to immediately strike down a massive and eminently unconstitutional, communist welfare state.

    They have failed to strike down unconstitutional central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth and social engineering, all of which are prohibited and precluded by clearly enumerated and nearly total restrictions on taxation and regulation, and by private property rights which are not qualified by the Constitution and are, therefore, absolute.

    They have failed to strike down confiscation of private property through unconstitutional regulation, transforming constitutionally private property into public property.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison
    _____________

    They have failed to defend the 4th Amendment right to privacy, “…the right of the people to be secure in their persons,…,” and the freedom of individual personal healthcare of the 4th and 9th Amendments.

    They have failed to cite any constitutional basis or authority for “emergency powers” and to deny constitutional rights and freedoms in order to mandate dictatorial quarantines, lockdowns and inoculations (“implied” powers are illicit and entirely bereft of any legal or constitutional basis; “implied” powers carry no weight, no force and no, otherwise, legitimacy).

    Justices of the Supreme Court, you swore oaths to support the Constitution; it is not of a scintilla of import or bearing that you approve, appreciate, enjoy or, otherwise, accept or reject any aspect or facet of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    You were not granted any power to legislate, modify legislation or legislate by “interpretation.”

    Your function is to objectively assure that actions comport with law, not to subjectively impose your individual and personal notions and ideology.

    Read, with comprehension, the Constitution, with emphasis on Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property, and support and implement the clear meaning and intent of that fundamental law.

    Expect to be impeached and convicted for crimes of high office when you act as political entities and fail to do your sworn duty, per the Constitution.

    Expect to be impeached and convicted for treason when you undermine, weaken and subvert the Constitution and America, and, by doing so, effectively give aid and comfort to the enemy, per the Constitution.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  6. General comment to all: I am sitting here watching the KY-Iowa game and poring through the good professor’s blog and respondent commenters. THANKS to all, even those I may respectfully disagree with, for stimulating thought, discussion, and sometimes persuasion. Here’s to a good 2022!

  7. I see that the 30 percent far left posters on this forum in their usual rhetoric on the Supreme Court have come forth with their unfounded talking points. Can these posters ever understand that many Democrats do not agree with packing the court. In other words, they do not agree with Schumer but do agree with Ginsburg concerning the packing of the court. Our everyday far left posters will only cause the moderate Democrats to stay home on Election Day. For this I express my heart felt thanks for dividing the Democratic Party from within. As James Carville might say; “You all are pissen into the wind and its been on your overalls for so long that even your dog won’t come around.”

  8. To take the one mild quote from a long report and conclude all that is a bit of a stretch. I encourage everyone to read the whole report to get a better understanding of the message Roberts was trying to convey.

    1. When Trumped packed the SCourt – in anticipation of his need for help just in case justice came knocking, he was merely filling vacancies.

      1. Yeah. Did Prof Turley have any comment about what the R’s did to block the Garland nomination and the opposite in ramming through the Barrett appointment?

  9. Thank you professor Turley for breaking this topic down with historic and constitutional perspectives

  10. Democrats have no interest in Democracy. They are interested in expansion of government control which is adverse to liberty and individual autonomy democracy provides. Democrats should be re-named Governmentists or Oligarchists because they want a small group of centralized people to determine the future for 350MM people and millions of businesses.

    A republican democracy is the best opportunity of liberty humans have discovered. Democrats are not interested in liberty just power and control.

    1. And yet is the Rs who are actively destroying the concept of free and fair elections in their country.

      1. Please provide reliable and factual proof of this, not just dem talking points. ANYONE can get an ID and find a way to vote without the intervention of democrat party operatives.

      2. Such bull that this character has failed to prove all the years he has been here. He is an empty vessel.

        Republicans in various states acceded to Democrat aberrations in the voting process, which is the cause of the questioned legitimacy of the election.

      3. Sammy we all know you’re a troll with no knowledge of the topics you bring up.

        Please cite one item that will detrimentally effect free a fair elections. I, along with others have have asked for such examples, and for some strange reason, a response never follows.

          1. I followed the link. Again. Again the body of the propaganda piece doesn’t come close to identifying a single law that threatens the freedom of elections.

            Go ahead Sammy, prove me wrong, cut and paste a bit of your ‘proof’ and we can hammer out the facts.
            Pro tip. Read more than the headline when looking for a link.

            1. “In Georgia, an election bill signed this year by the GOP governor gave the Republican-controlled General Assembly new powers over the state board of elections, which controls its local counterparts.”

              With this control they can simply not certify wins by Ds. Partisans can not be allowed to control the vote counting and certification process.

              1. Sammy, I know its like asking a dog do quadratic equations, but. Exactly where did the State Board of Elections get their power to direct those local counter parts?

                See?
                The legislature exercising it constitutional power is exactly how free and fair elections operate.

                  2. Sami, when someone makes a statement, you counter providing wrong or dubious answers. They respond correctly, leaving you with a question you cannot answer.

                    After this has happened so many times, can’t you figure out why this always happens to you? Isn’t it clear that you make things up by promoting lies and deception?

      4. Thanks Sammy for marvelous insight but know that Peddled fantasy is still BS

    3. Thank you for reminding people that we are a “republican democracy,” (I would say a constitutional REPUBLIC or maybe democratic REPUBLIC). One of the most insidious and politically-motivated tactics used by politicians and media sources is the persistent attempt to create the illusion of a full “democracy” and its attendant political ramifications.

  11. “inappropriate political influence” on the Court in contravention of our constitutional values and traditions.”

    The Democrats of recent years don’t care about values and traditions. They just took down Jefferson’s statue in NYC.

    One should not vote for any Democrats until the Democrat party has shed itself of its bigots, those that threaten the court and those that do not promote American values. American values start with families and permit them to thrive independently from political forces.

    1. My thoughts too. Stop voting dem entirely until they clean up their act. Doesn’t matter if they are legitimately moderate, they WILL be pressured to cave to the radical contingent, and most will without a course correction. As an independent, I haven’t voted for a dem since 2008, and I used to. I won’t ever again unless they do some house cleaning, and I have extended that boycott to businesses after the debacle that has been the past five years.

  12. Obama was denied about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick. That’s court packing.

    2. From Merriam-Webster

      Definition of court-packing: the act or practice of packing (see PACK entry 3 sense 1) a court and especially the United States Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges or justices in an attempt to change the ideological makeup of the court

    4. The leftist propensity to redefine terms to support their flawed logic has gotten old, and is well-recognized by all thinking people at this point. Now call my speech ‘violence’ and my debate ‘insurrection’ and you’ll get complete your foolishness, and we’ll continue to ignore you.

  13. The Rs for decades have had a litmus test for abortion for all their justices, and the Rs denied Obama his pick of Justice go get what they want. The Rs have made the court their political lap dog and Roberts has the nerve to say the Ds are making it political.

    1. One needs to assess the truth before writing fiction. Look at all the Republican-appointed judges that on the bench moved left.

      You promote nonsense under this alias in the same fashion when you post as ATS or your other address with a generic icon that is continuously deleted.

    2. Sammy: You clearly believe that SC justices simply vote their politics instead of the law. You might want to explain how the Roe v Wade decision was supported by Republican judges nominated by Eisenhower and Nixon, and rejected by the liberal justice nominated by Kennedy.

    4. Please explain why Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kalgan were confirmed by overwhelming majority if Republicans are so bias.

  14. The fact that the Supreme Court is NOT democratic, or aligned with the views of the modern Democrat Party, is a good thing, just as it is a good thing they are not aligned with the views of any other political party.

    Regarding the rants by Cortez and Warren, among others: If they want their means to be achieved, they should be able to convince the elected members of the government (commonly called, “Congress”) to pass their ideas into law. The entire Roe vs Wade issue could be stopped in its tracks if Congress were to pass, and the President were to sign, a law that would prevent the outlawing of abortion. But those political cowards won’t do so; they insist that another branch of government do their dirty work.

  15. My ol’ Daddy always taught me in situations like this…..”One should consider the source and just ignore the comment!. When the likes of Schumer, Nadler, Pelosi, Swalwell, Schiff, Warren, and Blumenthal start spouting this line of partisan hyperbole…..we should take my Daddy’s advice.

    He also told me that you must bloody a Bully’s Nose if you wish for him to quit picking on you.

    Sane reasonable people will understand what the radical Leftists are proposing is just another attack on our system of government set forth by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    In this case, Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Ginsberg, and other Learned Constitutional Scholars are exactly right in their rebuttal of those resorting to raw political scheming to undermine the Rule of Law.

    2022 Elections shall see my Daddy’s counsel re Bullying be put into place by the People of the United States as they vote in Republicans and vote out Democrats.

    Here ends the lesson.

    1. The Supreme Court has been political since FDR. For most cases, the votes of most justices can be predicted ahead of time based on who appointed them. The Democratic block nearly always votes in unison. I can’t recall a single case where a Democratic-appointed justice voted against this block to swing a 5/4 vote to the side of the Republican block. But there are numerous cases of Republican-appointed swing-justices doing just that, with justices Kennedy and Roberts being prime examples. The issue is that courts are supposed to rule on the Constitution. But Roe vs Wade through that concept out the window, with the right to abortion suddenly appearing in the Constitution after 185 years of not being there. The end result is that we have a rule of law determined by the majority vote of 9 politically appointed justices instead of the Constitutional Republic created by the founders.

      1. David Kern: You need to look up the composition of the SC during the Roe decision — Republican justices voted for it; liberal justice voted against it. Your “analysis” does not stand up to the facts.

    2. Ralph, While I agree with your comment, I fear we will have a repeat of the second Obama election where everyone expected Obama to lose and then didn’t vote. We must have a turnout that dwarfs Biden’s “win.”

  17. The Court, right now, is all that stands between Constitutional government and the feckless Democrats and the medical tyranny being imposed on Americans.

    1. Voter suppression…fine. Insurrection A-OK, Temporary pub.id health measures…..tyranny! That is the Republican way!

      1. Voter Suppression: A lame excuse by Democrats to promote illegal votes diluted the votes of American citizens.

        Insurrection: What were the riots against local, state and federal properties? Laughable! Those entering the Capitol building forgot their guns, some were entering with apparent officials by the police and some organizing a more violent approach had a high likelihood of being involved with the FBI and leftists.

        Vaccine: Forcing people to take a vaccine that doesn’t stop the spread of a virus.

        Holmes, you are a wannabe dictator.

        1. Trump and his cultists attacked the capital after a two month long effort to install an unelected persist. It was an attempted coup and it is just sickening that so many Rs are supportive of that. And galling that they have the nerve to talk about how they support freedom and democracy

          1. Sammy: Was there ever a coup in history where the “insurrectionists” left their weapons at home and brought their cell phones instead? Or where the police-in-charge opened the doors to the palace and let the revolutionaries in? Or where the police calls for National Guard assistance were ignored? And BTW, given that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, don’t the numerous threats against it by Democratic politicians constitute a coup?

          2. Sami, you think slapping one across the face is a coup. Outside of the officer that murdered Ashley Babbitt, how many shots were fired by those ‘insurrectionists’ in the Capitol building? How many guns did they have? How many guns did the Capitol police have in total?

            How can you sound any sillier? It’s difficult for you to sound sillier but I am sure you will find a way.

      4. Justice Holmes: Repeating Dem talking points will only tarnish your good name. What Dems consider “voter suppression” is asking for ID. Their excuse that POC cannot get IDs easily has been debunked by minorities themselves. If you can’t get a library card, bank account or medical appointment without a picture ID, you can bet people will have them. Most states give them away free, or for less than the cost of a pack of cigarettes. Dems want no-excuse, no ID mail-in ballots, which only started with the pandemic (before that, you’d have to provide a reason). You have to ask why the Dems are so averse to IDs, and then look at the southern border.

      5. Show me someone charged and convicted of ‘insurrection’, then.

        Right-can’t.

        Next.

    2. The Rs on the court don’t give a hoot about the constitution. They just rule how they want and make up the reason after.

      1. Sammy: Now you’re just throwing it all against the wall to see what sticks…and it doesn’t. Turley has itemized many times the numerous SC decisions this year that have been bipartisan, so your silly, factless rant lacks all credibility. You have exposed and confirmed your troll status, so no need to engage you further.

  18. As internal, external, well intended, intentionally destructive, benign and evil threats to our institutions, constitution and culture continue to mount – enemies continue to foster contention and confusion – I appreciate the wisdom and forethought of our founding fathers more and more.

  20. You use the word “Democratic” to describe certain politicians. These people are anything but democratic. The correct term is “Democrat”.

    1. Thank you, Mr. Nixon! Democrats are pro democracy! Republicans are pro oligarchy!

      1. Holmes, do you even know what democracy is? Didn’t you ever learn that the founders didn’t want a democracy for good reasons?

      2. Justice Holmes: LOL. Tell that to the billionaires who disproportionately donate to the Democratic party.

        1. Giocon1,
          Yeah, there are some who truly are delusional.
          Looking at the campaign contributions, the oligarchs, and their employees donate predominately to the Democrat party.
          One would have to have their heads buried deep in the manure to not know that.

          I take comfort knowing and seeing there is a sizeable section of society who are independent thinkers, not buying the MSM propaganda, and have a degree of common sense to see past those delusional.

      3. Injustice Homeboy,

        Musk paid $11 billion in unconstitutional confiscatory taxes, which were forced on him by invading parasites and communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

        Democrats are pro stealing “free stuff” from other people’s money.

        Democrats are pro matriculation affirmative action and pro affirmative action employment.

        Democrats don’t believe in self-reliance or merit.

        Democrats believe in generational welfare, generational public housing, generational affirmative action, generational quotas, generational forced busing, etc.

        Conservatives adhere, follow and obey the law, the Constitution, in a society of laws.

        Communists hate the Constitution because, when it is implemented to its fullest extent, the parasites receive no “free stuff” from other people’s money and they have to actually work and achieve for a living.

        The Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom.

        Freedom requires, without mitigation, self reliance.

        “Free stuff” for worthless, disgusting, dependent parasites comes from the Communist Manifesto.

        To wit

        “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

        – Karl Marx

Comments are closed.