Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 08, 2026

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern on Wednesday about the public perception of the Supreme Court as an institution driven primarily by political outcomes rather than the law at a time when some prominent voices have raised questions about the top U.S. judicial body's legitimacy.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

There is something deeply pathological about Chief Justice Roberts insisting the Supreme Court isn't political while sitting atop the most ideological supermajority in modern history.

[image or embed]

-- Andrew Weinstein (@andrewjweinstein.com) May 6, 2026 at 11:45 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It's that whole "appearance of impropriety" thing, Chief.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and votes like the gander that bought your vacation home, you may have more of an issue than what the public thinks.

#1 | Posted by morris at 2026-05-07 01:35 PM | Reply

The Court that undid the Voting Rights Act is racist?

That's a feature, not a bug.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 01:39 PM | Reply

... expressed concern on Wednesday about the public perception of the Supreme Court as an institution driven primarily by political outcomes rather than the law ...

Well then, maybe SCOTUS (i.e., the MAGA majority) should stop acting so politically?

MAGA has been injecting politics into every branch of government, why not SCOTUS?



#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-05-07 02:11 PM | Reply

... the public perception of the Supreme Court as an institution driven primarily by political outcomes Trump rather than the law ...

Actions have consequences, Roberts.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-07 02:15 PM | Reply

Republican Justices getting tens of millions of dollars in "gifts" from people benefitting directly from their rulings?

Republican Justices ignoring the Constitution, stare decisis, and Statutes?

Who could have guessed it would tarnish their reputation?

#5 | Posted by Sycophant at 2026-05-07 02:35 PM | Reply

"For gold the hireling judge distorts the laws ... ."
Samuel Johnson, "The Vanity of Human Wishes" (1749)

#6 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-05-07 04:46 PM | Reply

The court that gave Trump immunity for his crimes might be perceived as being driven by political outcomes?

#7 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2026-05-07 06:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We're perceiving it exactly right, and that's what he's pissed about.

#8 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-05-07 07:50 PM | Reply

Everyone thinks he's tainted.

#9 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-05-08 12:18 AM | Reply

Don't believe your lying eyes or your lying ears. Isn't that right Chief Justice Roberts?

But didn't you leave out "Trump uber alles" or is that just the read between the lines part of your BS statement.

#10 | Posted by Hickory at 2026-05-08 08:17 AM | Reply

There are six "Justices" who lied through their teeth at the Congressional hearings, saying there really was a thing called stare decisis...and then they did what they could to overturn the people's right to have human rights, say, the right to own their own bodies...and certainly they were all about Citizens United changes that stole American elections for the oligarchs. As Trump said, they owed him their jobs, and they paid him back a hundred fold.

#11 | Posted by Hughmass at 2026-05-08 08:35 AM | Reply

Judge Alito: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in
1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of
occasions, and I discussed those yesterday, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision,
sometimes on the merits, sometimes in Casey based on stare decisis, and I think that when a
decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as stare decisis for at least
two reasons.
Judge Thomas: Senator, I think that the Supreme Court has made clear that the issue of marital
privacy is protected, that the State cannot infringe on that without a compelling interest, and the
Supreme Court, of course, in the case of Roe v. Wade has found an interest in the woman's right
to"as a fundamental interest a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
Judge Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
Judge Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Judge Coney Barrett: I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I'll follow the law.

The Supreme Court stopped being a respected institution bringing solemnity, dignity, and legitimacy to the government when over half the sitting justices were revealed to be just another pack of lying, conniving, grifting political players.

#12 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2026-05-08 09:59 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort