HERSHEY, Pa. — Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday defended the Supreme Court from what he believes are misconceptions held by the American people that he and his colleagues are “political actors” who are making decisions based on policy, not law.
Subscribe to read this story ad-free
Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.
Speaking at a conference for lawyers and judges in Hershey, Roberts said the Supreme Court is required to make decisions that are not popular and bemoaned that there is not a better understanding among the public of how the court operates.
“I think at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, [that] we’re saying we think this is what things should be as opposed to this is what the law provides,” Roberts said. “I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty.”
While he conceded that people have a right to criticize the court and its decisions, he added that there is a tendency to focus too much on politics.
“We’re not simply part of the political process, and there’s a reason for that, and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate,” Roberts said.
Roberts is a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which has moved federal law to the right on a number of weighty issues in recent years, such as abortion and gun rights.
The court has also in several cases weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, including in a ruling last week that led to outrage and disappointment on the left.
In his remarks, Roberts did not mention that case or any other specific cases, but he made a point of noting that the court at times is required to make decisions that are not well-received.
“One of the things we have to do is issue decisions that are unpopular,” he said.
Those rulings, he added, are “based on our best effort to figure out what the Constitution means and how it applies.”
At a time of rising security threats against judges, Roberts repeated his concern that criticism of the judiciary should be limited to the substance of decisions and not the judges as individuals.
“As soon as that happens, that’s not appropriate, and it can lead to very serious problems,” he said.
