{"id":124950,"date":"2025-06-30T15:03:22","date_gmt":"2025-06-30T23:03:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/30\/john-roberts-wants-america-to-understand-that-he-does-not-care\/"},"modified":"2025-06-30T15:03:22","modified_gmt":"2025-06-30T23:03:22","slug":"john-roberts-wants-america-to-understand-that-he-does-not-care","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/30\/john-roberts-wants-america-to-understand-that-he-does-not-care\/","title":{"rendered":"John Roberts Wants America To Understand That He Does Not Care"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chief Justice John Roberts famously holds the public in utter contempt. He spends his annual report ignoring the critical issues facing the justice system while downplaying the judicial ethics crisis<\/a> or waxing philosophic about the history of typewriters<\/a>. <\/p>\n

His latest bugaboo is blaming the American public for daring to question judges<\/a>, going so far as to suggest calling out judges as partisan hacks in a blog post to burning crosses on the lawns of Southern federal judges in the 1960s.<\/p>\n

It would be the sign of a deeply disturbed mind if he wasn\u2019t so clearly bullshitting the public. <\/p>\n

At least in his report he paid some lip service to a vague category of acceptable<\/em> criticism, before proceeding to lay out that any criticism of him fell definitively into the unacceptable bucket. Over the weekend at a Fourth Circuit conference, Roberts further refined his \u201cy\u2019all need to shut up and take it\u201d stance in the wake of the current Term. From CNN<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Taking criticism over the court\u2019s opinions, Roberts said, is par for the course. But the chief justice also said that \u201cusually\u201d such criticism has more to do with the fact that a party lost rather than any sense they didn\u2019t get a fair hearing.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not the judge\u2019s fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don\u2019t get to do this,\u201d Roberts said. \u201cIf it\u2019s just venting because you lost, then that\u2019s not terribly helpful.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If you have a problem with the Court, it\u2019s because you lost and you\u2019re just venting. It\u2019s hard to imagine what the acceptable criticism column even looks like once criticism is dismissed out of hand as venting. <\/p>\n

Back in the day, Amy Coney Barrett chided critics by demanding they engage with the written opinion<\/a>. While always a bogus cop out in a shadow docket world, at least she once hinted that the courts would deal with substantive criticism in good faith. Fast forward to last Friday, and ACB blows off Justice Jackson\u2019s dissent with this<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is gibberish. To be clear, what so frustrates Barrett about the Jackson dissent is that the majority can\u2019t cobble together a coherent answer. Which is why they prefer \u201cnot dwell\u201d on it. Universal injunctions are \u201cbad\u201d to the extent we let litigants astroturf their way into binding the whole nation from a lonely Amarillo courthouse. There are reforms that can address that (e.g., requiring three-judge multidistrict panels to issue such broad injunctive relief) but the Supreme Court did none of that and instead just magicked away the tool entirely despite being blessed by volumes upon volumes of precedent. The majority ignores that history by claiming these injunctions didn\u2019t happen back when it took six days to travel across state lines by horse and buggy and the government lacked the power to systematically impose blanket constitutional violations at light speed. Jackson explains that this death grip elevation of anachronism effectively removes the judiciary from the system of checks and balances \u2014 especially in a case implicating civil rights where the government can rely on practical barriers to a courthouse as a means of avoiding compliance. To which Barrett declares with all her academic bona fides\u2026 nuh-uh<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s an embarrassing sidestep unbecoming the Court, but it does confirm that the John Roberts school of \u201call criticism is unacceptable\u201d has taken root even among the justices themselves.<\/p>\n

But while the Chief was at it, he also joked about the Court\u2019s tradition of dumping its hottest of garbage decisions on the last day before bolting out of town.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThings were a little crunched toward the end this year,\u201d Roberts said, suggesting the court might \u201ctry to space it out a little better next year, I suppose.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Roberts doesn\u2019t believe any of this shit, but assumes you\u2019re too stupid to question it. <\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post John Roberts Wants America To Understand That He Does Not Care<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chief Justice John Roberts famously holds the public in utter contempt. He spends his annual report ignoring the critical issues facing the justice system while downplaying the judicial ethics crisis<\/a> or waxing philosophic about the history of typewriters<\/a>. <\/p>\n

His latest bugaboo is blaming the American public for daring to question judges<\/a>, going so far as to suggest calling out judges as partisan hacks in a blog post to burning crosses on the lawns of Southern federal judges in the 1960s.<\/p>\n

It would be the sign of a deeply disturbed mind if he wasn\u2019t so clearly bullshitting the public. <\/p>\n

At least in his report he paid some lip service to a vague category of acceptable<\/em> criticism, before proceeding to lay out that any criticism of him fell definitively into the unacceptable bucket. Over the weekend at a Fourth Circuit conference, Roberts further refined his \u201cy\u2019all need to shut up and take it\u201d stance in the wake of the current Term. From CNN<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Taking criticism over the court\u2019s opinions, Roberts said, is par for the course. But the chief justice also said that \u201cusually\u201d such criticism has more to do with the fact that a party lost rather than any sense they didn\u2019t get a fair hearing.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not the judge\u2019s fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don\u2019t get to do this,\u201d Roberts said. \u201cIf it\u2019s just venting because you lost, then that\u2019s not terribly helpful.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If you have a problem with the Court, it\u2019s because you lost and you\u2019re just venting. It\u2019s hard to imagine what the acceptable criticism column even looks like once criticism is dismissed out of hand as venting. <\/p>\n

Back in the day, Amy Coney Barrett chided critics by demanding they engage with the written opinion<\/a>. While always a bogus cop out in a shadow docket world, at least she once hinted that the courts would deal with substantive criticism in good faith. Fast forward to last Friday, and ACB blows off Justice Jackson\u2019s dissent with this<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is gibberish. To be clear, what so frustrates Barrett about the Jackson dissent is that the majority can\u2019t cobble together a coherent answer. Which is why they prefer \u201cnot dwell\u201d on it. Universal injunctions are \u201cbad\u201d to the extent we let litigants astroturf their way into binding the whole nation from a lonely Amarillo courthouse. There are reforms that can address that (e.g., requiring three-judge multidistrict panels to issue such broad injunctive relief) but the Supreme Court did none of that and instead just magicked away the tool entirely despite being blessed by volumes upon volumes of precedent. The majority ignores that history by claiming these injunctions didn\u2019t happen back when it took six days to travel across state lines by horse and buggy and the government lacked the power to systematically impose blanket constitutional violations at light speed. Jackson explains that this death grip elevation of anachronism effectively removes the judiciary from the system of checks and balances \u2014 especially in a case implicating civil rights where the government can rely on practical barriers to a courthouse as a means of avoiding compliance. To which Barrett declares with all her academic bona fides\u2026 nuh-uh<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s an embarrassing sidestep unbecoming the Court, but it does confirm that the John Roberts school of \u201call criticism is unacceptable\u201d has taken root even among the justices themselves.<\/p>\n

But while the Chief was at it, he also joked about the Court\u2019s tradition of dumping its hottest of garbage decisions on the last day before bolting out of town.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThings were a little crunched toward the end this year,\u201d Roberts said, suggesting the court might \u201ctry to space it out a little better next year, I suppose.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Roberts doesn\u2019t believe any of this shit, but assumes you\u2019re too stupid to question it. <\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Chief Justice John Roberts famously holds the public in utter contempt. He spends his annual report ignoring the critical issues facing the justice system while downplaying the judicial ethics crisis or waxing philosophic about the history of typewriters. His latest bugaboo is blaming the American public for daring to question judges, going so far as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":124906,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Headshot-300x200-VtBTIF.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124950\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/124906"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}