Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Roberts Breaks Silence After Kavanaugh: ‘We Speak for the Constitution’

Roberts Breaks Silence After Kavanaugh: ‘We Speak for the Constitution’

“What I would like to do is emphasize how the judicial branch is and must be very different.”

Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken for the first time since the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

At the University of Minnesota Law School, Roberts reminded people that the Supreme Court doesn’t speak for agendas or political parties, but for the Constitution.

It amazes me to no end that people forget the justices on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution and that document has no political leanings or agenda.

Townhall transcribed his remarks:

“As our newest colleague put it, we do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. We do not caucus in separate rooms. We do not serve one party or one interest. We serve one nation. I want to assure all of you that we will continue to do that to the best of our abilities, whether times are calm or contentious,” Roberts said.

Roberts reminded the audience that politicians speak for the people who elected them but the Court does not. The Court’s soul purpose is to be independent and unpartisan.

“I have great respect for our public officials. After all, they speak for the people, and that commands a certain degree of humility from those of us in the judicial branch who do not,” Roberts explained.

“We do not speak for the people, but we speak for the Constitution. Our role is very clear,” the chief justice said. “I will not criticize the political branches. We do that often enough in our opinions. What I would like to do is emphasize how the judicial branch is and must be very different.”

Roberts reminded people that many of the important decisions from the Supreme Court went the opposite way of what many at the time would have wanted. He said without that independence, we wouldn’t have had Brown v. Board of Education or the 1943 ruling that said public school students do not have to salute the flag.

Another example of independence came in 2011 when the Court received the case about the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals. The vote came out as 8-1 and Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He voted in favor of the church even though it went against his personal beliefs because it is his job to apply the First Amendment:

“The protesters were on the public sidewalk. They had a particular point of view, as offensive as it was, and so I wrote the opinion for the court,” he said. “I think the vote was 8-1 upholding their right to — to protest in that matter. I didn’t like it, but I thought, and as my colleagues did, that was the right answer.”

Roberts believes the few times the Supreme Court made errors when it caved to political pressure like in 1944 when it upheld the internment camps for Japanese-American citizens.

One student asked Roberts about females on the bench and if that “has affected the way he looks at cases.” He responded:

“I understand the argument that it brings a different perspective,” the chief justice said. “On the other hand, it may, but I would say it’s subconscious in the sense that I don’t hear anything and think, ‘Oh, that’s a peculiarly female perspective on the law.’ In terms of the legal work and the presentation, I don’t see a difference. Maybe I’m just not attuned to it, but I think my female colleagues perform pretty much the same way my male colleagues do,” he said.

Remember how I said the Constitution has no political leanings or agendas? It also doesn’t have a gender. The Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is as clear cut as anything else written in the world.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Roberts is living in the same dreamland as the RINOs and the Never Trumpers.

A dreamland where everybody is nice and follows the rules.

Individual federal judges think they have the authority to dictate orders to the entire federal government. The Ninth Circuit is so laughably biased that nobody even pretends their decisions are going to stand anymore. Kagan and Sotomayor are raging liberals that don’t give a shit what the Constitution says, they only care about furthering liberal causes.

And Roberts thinks they just need to remain ‘independent’.

The liberals laugh at you, Roberts.

If only that really were true. But it’s okay. We know that as human beings it’s very difficult to separate ones perceptions and views from ones perceptions of other situations this applies to legal decisions.

What a liberal may look for and use to defend a decision will be different from what a conservative does. It’s not conscious for the most part.

Some of the “atmosphere” in the country will also seep in and lean a decision one way or another.

And that’s okay. The reason we can be relaxed about it is that finally the balance has shifted for an unknown amount of time to the other side however slight.

To the left it seems like an earthquake but in reality its just a small and justifiable shift.

This is how one makes progress. First a step to the right then a step to the left. Electricity goes up and down.

Progress is made in movement to and fro very rarely do people move in straight lines.

He is such a vexing man. After breaking his neck to make an exceedingly POLITICAL decision to uphold the ACA (allegedly changing his initial view)and after listening to all those years of left wing law is a Gumbi or chew toy crap coming out of RBG’s mouth (we must look to Europe to fix our broken Constitution), this man has the AUDACITY to claim the courts, and this includes the SC, are not political.

Where has he been?

Every lower court in the nation is pure politics, usually of the left-wing variety, because the left uses the courts as a way around legislation. Would Roberts deny this?

What the hell is he even talking about?

Was he asleep during the Kavanaugh circus?

    guyjones in reply to Titan28. | October 17, 2018 at 5:12 pm

    Precisely — Roberts’s about-face on Obamacare, made purely for political considerations, in response to a threat made by a political figure (Obama) was and remains indefensible, a total abdication of judicial independence, to say nothing of the farcical jurisprudential sophistry and sleight-of-hand upon which the decision was actually grounded.

    Roberts may have forgotten this shameful bit of history, but, others haven’t.

A shift to the right is a shift for neutrality. A shift to the left is a veer of a cliff. The political game is rigged.

Colonel Travis | October 17, 2018 at 3:51 pm


John “Rewrite The Statute” Roberts, lecturing us about how he serves nothing but the Constitution.

Forgive me for never being able to forgive him for one of the stupidest decisions in SCOTUS history.

quiksilverz24 | October 17, 2018 at 3:55 pm

quick sidebar, is anyone else having issues with Android Chrome getting redirected to spam sites? Not sure if my phone got some crap or if it’s the site. Every other webpage I go to is fine.

Since his ACA decision to allow it to proceed I have lost respect for the SCOTUS and their ability to just render a verdict on the legality of a law presented to them. They are not supposed to consider the future results of their decisions like Roberts did with the ACA decision. They are to determine only if the laws are legal constitutionally. To say there are no politics at the SCOTUS is just plain stupid. RGB even violated the custom of never speaking out politically during a campaign when she suggested that she might have to move to New Zealand if he was elected! Then we have the “Wise” latina who knows more than old white men. And the rug eater who was a flaming liberal at Harvard and who threw the ROTC of campus. Of course, they are not political!

It amazes me to no end that people forget the justices on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution and that document has no political leanings or agenda.



we’re you serious?


spare me.

Close The Fed | October 17, 2018 at 4:39 pm

SCOTUS overreaches constantly. Plyler v. Doe, 1982, anyone?

Time to impeach these arrogant asses, these pretenders, who usurp our right to self-govern. They’ve aided and abetted our destruction and I am mightily tired of them and their conceits.

If we get anymore Plylers, any more Roes, anymore of this legislating, impeach impeach impeach.

And they need to be overturning this arrogant crap and not telling Americans we have to live with their crap just because it happened a few decades ago. You marry 40 years ago, you can STILL DIVORCE THE S.O.B.

    Tom Servo in reply to Close The Fed. | October 17, 2018 at 6:22 pm

    Fun Trivia – I actually knew Jim Plyler pretty well. He was the Superintendent of the School District that was sued, which was why his name ended up on that suit. He was always a bit amused about the fact that his name ended up in legal textbooks around the country, over a lawsuit that he actually had almost nothing to do with. Oh and by the way he really was a great guy to know.

Somewhat hypocritical of the Chief Justice of the U.S. to emphasize that SCOTUS decisions must be rendered free of political pressures and consideration, given that his last-minute, 180-degree about-face in the prelude to the Court’s Obamacare decision (which change of heart saw Roberts furiously lobbied by Kennedy, to come back to the fold) was almost certainly motivated by his fear that to strike down this exercise in abject totalitarianism would somehow undermine the Court’s legitimacy, in the eyes of Leftists and Dumb-o-crats.

Roberts’s concern for the Court’s reputation is appropriate, and, it has been well-documented, but, in this case, he indefensibly gave in to the transparent and utterly crass intimidation tactics of politics, specifically, the self-serving threats of Obama. Obama must have been shocked that his infantile and arrogant threat — “I’m sure that the Court wouldn’t take the unprecedented step of overruling a duly-enacted piece of Congressional legislation (or, some-such rhetoric) — actually worked by planting the seed of fear in Roberts’s mind.

    Mac45 in reply to guyjones. | October 17, 2018 at 6:17 pm

    “Roberts’s concern for the Court’s reputation is appropriate, and, it has been well-documented, but, in this case, he indefensibly gave in to the transparent and utterly crass intimidation tactics of politics, specifically, the self-serving threats of Obama.”

    Or, one of the “consultants”, whom the FBI had given access to the NSA database, found a lever on Roberts.

“It amazes me to no end that people forget the justices on the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution and that document has no political leanings or agenda.”

What purpose then, can the constitution possibly serve? Are we so regressive that our government is bound with these archaic chains of disunity and disorder? How can we possibly have values that we can legitimately hold as ‘ours’ if each of us can determine our own?

Chaos, I tell you, chaos.

Look, the speech made by Roberts was a POLITICAL speech. It was designed, not address reality, but to try to attempt to convince people that the Court is apolitical. This, we know, is total hogwash. We know this because we have the justices clearly divided along ideological lines. We have the “conservative” justices who tend to rule on the basis of strict Constitutional construction. Then you have the “liberal” wing of the Court who often ignore the language of the Constitution and make spurious and illogical arguments in order to further a Progressive ideology.

It is all about politics. However, at least the “conservatives” on the Court pay lip service to making decisions on the basis of a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

WaPo: Two ways Democrats can remove Kavanaugh — without impeaching him

If that were viable, then Trump could nominate RBG for a lower court, McConnell could round up 51 votes and, voila… empty seat on the court. I don’t believe he thought this through.

Roberts is doing his Lorax impression. Was the constitution telling you to save Obamacare?

“No Republican voted for Obamacare. ” uh, no. This one did, twice.

    redc1c4 in reply to unommin. | October 17, 2018 at 9:08 pm

    so, you’re a “lifelong Republican” just like Agarn O’Rourke’s mom down there in Texas?

    ’round here, we call your type “mobies” or NPCs, pilgrim.

    nice try though. go peddle your swamp gas somewhere they’ll buy it.

    Aarradin in reply to unommin. | October 18, 2018 at 3:46 am

    So, are you in the U.S. House or the Senate?


    Then you completely failed to understand the statement you are responding to.

but I think my female colleagues perform pretty much the same way my male colleagues do

Testing out material for his moonlighting career in standup comedy, perhaps?

It’s not clear what else might explain such a bizarre fantasy.

This from the guy who turned the Constitution on its head by declaring that, while the mandate was indeed Un-Constitutional (he admits this in the ruling), the feds taxing power is “absolute” and therefore Congress can impose a tax on everyone that is triggered by non-compliance with a blatantly Un-Constitutional requirement.

So, the Constitution no longer places any constraints whatsoever on the federal government.

They can violate any of it they like, so long as they do so by imposing a tax for not complying with their Un-Constitutional law.

You all, above, are (correctly) upset about Roberts rewriting the statute to declare it a tax – which the Senators that voted on it were insistent that it was not. But, SCOTUS rewrites statutes like that all the time (contrary to Roberts speech in the O.P.) to avoid having to strike down laws they’d prefer to keep. That’s bad enough. But, the real violence he did to the Constitution is in declaring that the taxing power can over-ride ANY restriction that the Constitution places on the federal government.

Ginsburg, in her entire career, did less damage than Roberts did with that one ruling.

He’s the last guy in the country that has any standing to be making the speech quoted above.

The problem with the court is that it is heavily influenced by precedent and case law so much so that citizens cannot understand it’s decisions. Why does it take far more words to explain a decision than it did to write the bill of rights?

Oh really? What was Justice Roberts thinking when he sided with the move to force Americans to purchase a insurance policy? The fact that the Obama Care scam was illegal from the start and anti-constitutional to boot did not stand in his way! If the make-up of the court were not “political” then why are the dems literally going out of their minds over who is picked and confirmed?! Really?! Shame on you for trying to push this angle.

“Justice” Roberts lost my respect when he ruled the penalty in the so-called-Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) was a tax and therefore legal while totally ignoring that the tax originated in the Senate making it unconstitutional! That makes it look like he was being blackmailed.

After Kelo v. City of New London, District of Columbia v. Heller (which shows that they may have the right idea, but lack the logic and courage to actually do it), Griswold v. Connecticut (the source of those “emanations of penumbras”, the only real rationale for subsequent judicial editing of the Constitution), and the never-ending abuse of the Commerce Clause, this was really a very silly speech.

If the Supreme Court is not biased, why can we accurately forecast 7 of the Justices’ votes before the case is ever heard, and why do those votes come down consistently on political-ideological grounds?