How Dare People Understand Precisely What The Supreme Court Is Doing…

 …and criticize it accordingly? Right, Chief Justice?

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.

Turning the clock back 70 years and overturning decades of precedent because “We’re the Supreme Court, bitches!”, is just calling balls and strikes, isn’t it?

Isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to determine cases according to ideology instead of precedent and stare decisis?  I mean, what’s the point of being an ideologically driven Supreme Court, otherwise?

Doesn’t everyone understand that? And if they don’t, I’m sure whiningly scolding more people will get the point across.

“WE’RE THE SUPREME COURT, BITCHES!”

We live in a time dominated by deeply unserious people making deeply unserious arguments in support of tragically serious results that serious people would have both avoided and known to avoid.

Now I’m wondering if the Chief Justice follows Professor Vladeck’s account:

Two different technical, procedural moves from #SCOTUS yesterday have one thing in common:

The Court is behaving differently in otherwise similar cases based upon the ideological/partisan valence of the dispute.

Via "One First," me on why, results aside, that's a serious indictment of the Court: