Don't like the Supreme Court's recent opinions? Chief Justice John Roberts has thoughts
'It would be good if people appreciated it's not the judges' fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don't get to do this,' Roberts said at a judicial conference, the day after the Supreme Court handed down some of its biggest – and most divisive – opinions of the term.
In a public conversation with the chief judge of the Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts did not discuss any of those decisions, which included a big win for President Donald Trump in his fights with judges who have blocked his policies.
Instead, the chief justice was asked how he deals with criticism.
More: Called out by Trump for how he leads the Supreme Court, John Roberts is fine keeping a low profile
Roberts says he keeps in mind that each case has a winner and a loser – and the loser is not going to like the outcome.
'You'd like it to be informed criticism, but it's usually not,' he said. 'They're naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that's just the nature of what you do.'
More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways
Sometimes, however, the criticism comes not from the party that lost, but from other justices.
In writing the conservative majority's opinion that judges went too far when they blocked Trump's changes to birthright citizenship from going into effect everywhere in the country, Justice Amy Coney Barrett had some strong words about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent.
'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' Barret wrote. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.'
More: Trump Republicans lash out at Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a DEI hire
Jackson wrote that the majority's decision gives the president 'the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate.'
'As a result, the Judiciary – the one institution that is solely responsible for ensuring our Republic endures as a Nation of laws – has put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy,' she wrote.
Justice Jackson Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens
Roberts acknowledged that there can be sharp divisions among his colleagues and sharp adjectives employed, particularly at the end of the term.
But he said the justices all work hard to understand where they're colleagues are coming from 'to see if there's some way to if not bring things together, make the resolution as helpful as possible.'
'It's important to know, and understand, what Justice So-And-So is thinking about, because that will help you understand a little bit more about yours,' he said. 'And that's an interesting dynamic that plays out over the course of several months.'
Roberts also acknowledged that the court waited until the last days of the term to decide some of the biggest cases, saying they will try to spread things out more.
'Things were a little crunched,' he said, 'toward the end this year.'
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Chief Justice Roberts: Don't blame judges for applying the law
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
15 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Justice Kagan Won 70% of the Time
Here's a figure that might surprise: Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court's leading liberal, was in the majority of 70% of this term's non-unanimous outcomes. To compare, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, stout conservatives, were each at 62%, tied with Justice Sonia Sotomayor. They were a tick above Justice Neil Gorsuch's 61%. That's according to the end-of-term statistics compiled by the website SCOTUSblog. Also notable: 42% of rulings this year were unanimous, which is down slightly from the past two years, but it isn't far from the average of the past two decades. Another 24% of cases produced lopsided decisions, 8-1 and 7-2 (or else 7-1 with a recusal).

Wall Street Journal
16 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Floats a Mass Deportation ‘Temporary Pass'
If you're confused about the Trump Administration's mass deportation policy, join the club. First it was the full Stephen Miller, deporting every illegal in the land. Then there was going to be a reprieve for the agriculture and hospitality industries, then it was back to the full Miller. On Sunday the President said he now wants a 'temporary pass' for some businesses. 'I don't back away,' Mr. Trump said on Fox News Sunday Morning Futures. 'What I do have, I cherish our farmers. And when we go into a farm and we take away people that have been working there for 15 and 20 years, who were good, who possibly came in incorrectly. And what we're going to do is we're going to do something for farmers where we can let the farmer sort of be in charge. The farmer knows he's not going to hire a murderer.' He's right about that. Employers need good workers, and it's crazy policy for the U.S. government to raid businesses in order to drag away someone who arrived here illegally but has been a reliable employee for years. 'But you know, when you go into a farm and you set somebody working with them for nine years doing this kind of work, which is hard work to do and a lot of people aren't going to do it, and you end up destroying a farmer because you took all the people away—it's a problem,' Mr. Trump added. 'You know, I'm on both sides of the thing. I'm the strongest immigration guy that there's ever been, but I'm also the strongest farmer guy that there's ever been, and that includes also hotels and, you know, places where people work, a certain group of people work.'

Wall Street Journal
16 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Great Budget Baseline Con
The Senate on Monday began its 'vote-a-rama' on amendments to the tax bill, and it was scheduled to go deep in the night. But before we see the final product, it's worth rehearsing one more time one of the greatest distortions of this budget debate—to wit, that the Senate bill is a fiscal blowout because it will increase the federal deficit by $3.3 trillion over 10 years. That's the official Congressional Budget Office 'score' of the bill, but it's only true if you assume that Congress was going to tolerate a $4.5 trillion tax increase. That would be the result if the 2017 tax reform expired at the end of this year, as most of the individual tax provisions are scheduled to do. Congress was never going to allow that. Even Democrats support extending most of the 2017 individual cuts except the lower 37% top marginal rate. Senate Republicans correctly argue that the bill's cost should be measured against a more realistic baseline, which assumes that existing tax rates and policy continue. In any rational world, changes in the law would be scored against current policy. But in Washington they are scored against CBO's current-law 'baseline,' which assumes that the 2017 tax cuts will expire. Voila, $3.3 trillion in new deficits over 10 years.