447 Comments

Congratulations on submitting the manuscript—can hardly wait for the book!

John Roberts is right that Supreme Court justices should not live in fear. It’s a shame that he didn’t extend that concern to all public servants.

A happy new year to you and yours.

Expand full comment

I would add that it's also a shame he didn't extend that concern to everyday Americans who want to shop, got to school, go to concerts, or practice their faith. Let's hope that one day those synapses fire in such a way that he connects the fear he feels as a Justice to the fear ordinary Americans feel while trying to live ordinary lives.

Expand full comment

So start a letter campaign. You’ve got over 50 likes which is a pretty respectable following. Use the message in your post as a starting point. All of us who subscribe to HCR’s “Letters” should send a letter and convince two friends to do the same. Each of those friends should recruit two friends, etc. Get those SCOTUS synapses firing.

Expand full comment

"On page 4 of your 2022 Year End Report, you write: “A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear.”

No one in America should live in fear. Because of your court’s expansive rulings on the 2nd Amendment, children at school, election workers at polling sites, suburban shoppers, worshipers practicing their faith, and even sitting governors are at risk of being murdered by an attacker armed with an assault weapon. Your court has made our society unsafe."

Expand full comment

I like the idea of an ‘action’ to address this. Sometimes we talk too much and do too little.

Expand full comment

I don't think the Supreme Court can make laws to address these problems. A letter campaign would let the Justices know about (our) popular opinion, but presumably wouldn't sway their decisions regarding gun control, etc. Better to write letters to Senators and Representatives, and to vote the Republicans and any recalcitrant Democrats out of office.

Expand full comment

You are probably correct. I have personally taken a New Year's resolution to try to get people to stop voting for all Republicans until they remove the taint of all Fascists from their Party's power structure! Again, I don't think there are any recalcitrant Democrats except maybe Joe Manchun and Kristin Sinama, and Sinama left the Democratic Party herself!

Expand full comment

We can do both.

Roberts & the other justices need to face the real-life consequences of their rulings. I'm, sadly, convinced that this court will continue to reject sensible gun safety laws, no matter how narrowly worded. New York passed a law that seemed to fit within their restrictions; they rejected it.

Expand full comment

No they the law will not be affected by writing letters. I don't think that is the purpose. I think the purpose is to get as many people as we can to write and express our frustration with who and what the court is today. Do these guys even read newspapers? Or comment sections? I don't think so, they insulate themselves from the average joe or jane out here in the real world that gets to live with their decisions.

Expand full comment

Excellent idea. And letters to the editor.

Expand full comment

I'm on board. And we now have an address to use. So who here wants to make a stab at composing the letter. I guess first question should be, what do we want to say?

Expand full comment

I think we start perhaps asking a question: Why is there such a focus on denying women the right to choose their own health measures in order to save the “unborn” but once children are born no one protects them from slaughter by automatic military weapons?

Expand full comment

On page 4 of your 2022 Year End Report, you write: “A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear.”

No one in America should live in fear. Because of your court’s expansive rulings on the 2nd Amendment, children at school, election workers at polling sites, suburban shoppers, worshipers practicing their faith, and even sitting governors are at risk of being murdered by an attacker armed with an assault weapon. Your court has made our society unsafe.

Expand full comment

Thank you. My point exactly.

Expand full comment

@StacyEstrella Very well said, thank you and happy new year. 

Expand full comment
Jan 2, 2023·edited Jan 2, 2023

Poor Judge Roberts is moaning about his security. When, Oh When, will he worry about how hundreds of Capital Police feared for THEIR lives. Their urgent cries for help were rebuffed. They likely won't get any additional funding. When will you worry about the monumental, divisive destruction and bribery financed under the alleged guise of a PAC? All denounce Citizens United!!! Enjoy your limo and your driver and your bodyguard and your minions. Nothing more. For Mr. Roberts, you're nothing but an American. Just like those officers under siege. Just like me. Don't feel safe? The blame lies squarely on your associates to the right. Any desire to be a notable Chief Justice lies in your evaluation of that bloc (It disgusts me to have need to employ the word "bloc" when describing our Supreme Court makeup today.) Can you look your wife and your daughter in the eye, having been supportive of repealing 50 years' worth of protection for American women?

Expand full comment
Jan 2, 2023·edited Jan 2, 2023

"Poor Judge Roberts is moaning about his security."

I am not worried about Roberts safety. He can always buy an AK 47 and open carry it to work. What could be better for his security?

Right? Roberts and the court have set up a society where open carry IS supposed to be SECURITY. Why is he worried about his safety?

Is Roberts just stupid? Open carry in no way makes society more secure.

So, he has the Society he wants. Now, deal with it.

Expand full comment

Yes we all should be writing to Justice Roberts as recommended earlier in the Comments about this, and the other parts of his summary of the 2022 term. He should be swamped w letters/phone calls to: Justice John Roberts

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20543

Telephone: 202-479-3000

Expand full comment

Will do

Expand full comment

I wish there were a way to pipe into his bedroom every night this letter and all the comments being read aloud to him. Something like the three spirits visiting Scrooge. He’s in need of a few bad dreams!

Expand full comment

Wow!!! JP.....you nailed it!!!

Expand full comment

Agreed. It’s a shame Roberts failed to extend his safety concern not only to all public servants but to all American citizens.

Happy New Year.

Expand full comment

Roberts is perhaps the weakest Chief Justice in my lifetime. He exerts neither moral, nor intellectual leadership of the Court.

Expand full comment
Jan 2, 2023·edited Jan 2, 2023

James,

Roberts is a product of Citizen's United which, as far as I can tell, legalized the ability to bribe Supreme Court justices without us being disclosed to that fact.

It is not that Roberts is weak per se.

Rather, he is just a paid minion of the Federalist Society.

So, he looks weak, but, he is quite strong in delivering for that dark money provider.

Expand full comment

You nailed it again, Mike. Roberts is "weak" because he isn't looking at life from our point of view? No, he is strong and resolute in delivering for his Oligarch Masters.

And he has fellow travelers who do the same. I can see six justices sitting around a lunch table - no need to talk. Just big shit eating smirks on their faces as they realize the fascist dreams of their puppeteers. The greatest judicial institution in history has been hijacked by an uber extreme Catholic society. This is the very antithesis of what our founders intended. They are not "originalists". They are part of a coup to make America "religious" - an America that by a large majority does not want any single religious view applied to them.

My hope is that two of them will die. Soon. And we can begin to shift the court gradually back to some sense of honor and respect for the people. I don't wish death on people (Putin an exception). It's not good karma. But the damage done to America by these six throwbacks to an America of an abusive past is no less horrible than that of wars and major conflagrations. They are core evil.

Expand full comment

Maybe not dead but unable to do their job would be good :)

Expand full comment

Agree!

Expand full comment

Mike, it lends credence to my statement that he may have had something more sinister in mind. I hope that reason and sanity prevail, and this corrupt, bought and paid for, controlled court leads to a reform of the judiciary.

Expand full comment

Actually started with Powell. Roberts and Alito are just the continuation of the memo.

Expand full comment

Much more reasoned and socially acceptable than my somewhat rude and profane assessment.

Expand full comment

Agreed, 100%. Chief Justice Roberts appears to be spineless.

Expand full comment

I think you are on target with that comment.

Expand full comment

Not perhaps, IS

Expand full comment

There are six members of the allegedly-"supreme" court who SHOULD live in fear. In fear of "getting theirs" for their crimes against their country.

Expand full comment
Jan 2, 2023·edited Jan 2, 2023

The cost to Americans of prescription drugs, not reduced because of the positions taken by Republican Party; rights of Americans taken away by the Right-wing, fundamentalist religiosity of the Supreme Court, and hopes raised by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s, (Lula) defeat of the right-wing ally of former U.S. president Trump in Brazil were the issues that gave breath to today’s Letter.

Serious problems caused by The Republican Party and the Supreme Court, along with the importance of elections were highlighted in today's Letter because as HCR wrote, ‘…there are three things I didn’t want to let slip by, because they both sum up 2022 and point toward 2023.'

Expand full comment

The system promotes the ill health of ordinary Americans, then practices extortion from the sick.

And people actually vote for this!

They call it "democracy", they believe they enjoy "liberty"...

Seems Americans enjoy masochism, having freedoms taken away from them and monopolized by their "betters", a self-chosen aristocracy whose privileges depend on the unstinting support of those who vote for them...

Congratulations!

Enjoy!

[Or, if you don't enjoy this pig-in-a-pokery, get up this year and work for redress, for a genuine Republic!

IN 2023, LET'S ALL PURSUE GENUINE, LASTING HAPPINESS!]

Expand full comment

Peter, you are keenly aware of the propaganda convincing the aggrieved that they are 'enslaved' by the 'radical left' determined to control their lives. This campaign by the far-right has gone very deep into the marrow of about a third of America's population. We are not talking about Americans generally but a large slice of us. It is a tremendously difficult problem. The Supreme Court, which has become very unpopular, the defeat of deeply flawed candidates supported by Trump, the work of the House's 1/6 investigative committee and the likelihood of Trump being indicted by a state attorney general in either Georgia or New York or both and, perhaps, also by the DOJ all point to some improvement in America's very serious challenges.

Expand full comment

Mr. Burnett, it seems to me that the problem is that we live in a republic rather than a democracy. Both the Senate and the Electoral College are thoroughly anti-democratic. The winner of the popular vote for President has not become president several times. Senators from states with whole populations the size of one or two large cities in other states overrule senators representing far larger numbers of people.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Pilgrim RVW, but you are speaking of a very specific kind of republic, an oligarchic common-wealth and, in so doing, repeating the propaganda of the party that still calls itself "Republican".

People would do well to check the origin of the word "republic" in etymonline.com. RES, Latin for a thing, an entity, a concern + PUBLICA, making "respublica". Look up the word "public" while you're about it.

All this goes to show that a true republic is the people's thing.

There have, of course, been long-lasting and highly successful oligarchic republics like the Venetian and Genoese ones. I seem to remember that the Polish one in the 18th century was less successful.

For a while, Corsica had a true republic, led by Pasquale Paoli. One influence that inspired the founders of the American Republic.

The current G.O.P. conception of the public in re-public is a highly restricted and privileged minority, acting almost exclusively in what it imagines to be its own interest, while in effect undermining the interests of those who go to make up the very ground under the grand G.O.P. plinth... and so undermining the country and, of course, themselves...

Socialism for the ultra-rich...

A conspiracy against the public.

Expand full comment

Propaganda works, even on the intelligent and the educated. Sad but true,

Expand full comment

The seven Republican senators who did vote for the insulin price cap to apply to private insurers as well as Medicare—who are they and did any of them lose seats in 2022 or are they retiring? Just wondering what happens to Republicans who serve their constituents?

Expand full comment

"The seven Republican who voted with Democrats were Sens. Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.), John Kennedy (La.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Dan Sullivan (Alaska)."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3592005-these-seven-gop-senators-voted-to-keep-35-insulin-cap-in-reconciliation-bill/

Expand full comment

I am surprised by many of the names on this list, but grateful.

Many lifesaving breakthroughs were for humanitarian reasons intended to be "given away" - early antibiotic breakthroughs, polio vaccines, etc.

Insulin was in the category originally, I believe.

Americans are only 4% of the global population and need to recognize variants of the novel coronavirus will emerge and threaten us if vaccines are not made available worldwide.

Paul Ehrlich wrote in his 1968 book The Population Bomb had the number of humans passed levels of sustainability when there were less than 4 billion humans on the planet. We are now over 8 billion.

See the 60 Minutes 1/1/2023 episode segment titled "The Vanishing Wild."

Expand full comment

The current high court is both lawless and pathetic. Alito et. al are lawless. They are not "originalist." That term is made up bulls**t. They operate on the premise of "The law is but man's opinion." Translation: the law is whatever we say it is. John Roberts is a pathetic chief justice with little to no real influence. These people don't even try to avoid the appearance of wrong. They don' t think they have to. The Trump era, (which we are still in) has exposed for all to see what the Republicans have been doing under cover of cultural distractions for decades. They used to be stealthy; they are just brazenly open about their goals now. Their actions have exposed the flaws in our Constitution. Their actions are totally opposite of what the Constitution lays out. The lawless Republicans merely shrug their shoulders and say, "So what?"

Expand full comment

They have been part of the "quiet coup" and I wish them painless, peaceful natural deaths - real soon. The damage done by this court, and the direction they are taking it, make Trumps adventure pale in comparison.

Expand full comment

Natural deaths yes; painless and peaceful no - let them have a taste of final stage Parkinson's or something equally awful. They deserve every minute.

Expand full comment

Justice Roberts could and should have extended the right to every citizen of America including school children. If he and the radicals of SCOTUS do not understand that, they do not deserve their places on the court. Every time I think of under-the-desk drills, I feel sick. Justice Scalia’s deadly décision lives on.

Expand full comment

The school district where my children attended, has approved that teachers can have guns in the classroom. Not locked up safely, but holstered on them at all times.

We’re not expected to hide under desks. We’re expected to fight against armed active shooters. My district has armed officers on every campus. But I never signed up to be a soldier in education. It’s gone too far a long time ago!

Expand full comment

It is sad is it not?

That "security" in the United States has somehow been equated with "Open Carry".

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The more a bunch of people "Open Carry" the more everyone feels that everyone is a threat.

REAL security is making sure weapons of mass destruction are not available on a one second notice.

Expand full comment

Last week in Texas not certain exactly where. A maintenance man was shot while inspecting pipes at an apartment complex. The resident that shot the man said he thought the guy was breaking in. It’s become the Wild West!

Expand full comment

Yep. When you carry a gun then Everton is a threat instead of a neighbor.

Expand full comment

So hundreds of trained police officers in Uvalde were unable to open a door to confront one murderer, but strapping guns on teachers will solve the problem?

Expand full comment

The Texas pat answer is always the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Uvalde showed the world that that isn’t true. Maybe a brave good guy but that’s not who showed up. Then the idiots clogged up the area so horribly that ambulances couldn’t get to the victims. How many times did I tell my own children you should be in school after an awards ceremony last week of school? So very sad it’s just beyond my coping mechanism! I’m so sorry for the parents and families and friends! They set up a Dias de la muertos tribute with children’s desks at the governor’s mansion.

Expand full comment

Denise, I met with the teachers from Creslane Elementary School after Sandy Hook several times. I did a variety of things with them, one was a generalized information presentation along with frank conversation about the security of the building and visitor protocols. There were several school staff who really believed that carrying handguns would make their classrooms safer, and others who were terrified that they would be asked to carry a gun. In the end, I think that one custodian got his CHL and a letter from both the Superintendent and the Sheriff and he only carried it for about a month.

One of the concepts I have always talked with people (most often burglary victims who want to arm up to protect their stuff) about getting and using a gun is that not only is it a physical skill which must be practiced, there is also the mental and emotional preparation that has to take place before coming to grips with using deadly force. I would NEVER ask someone who, by inclination, disposition, and belief to carry a gun and expect them to kill someone regardless of the circumstances.

Asking teachers to kill the shooter in this situation is ridiculous.

Expand full comment

Denise....and so the NRA increases its power and continues to increase its influence....

Expand full comment

Abbutt spoke about gun control and how it could have been worse to Uvalde victims then went to Houston to an NRA convention. At the convention he spoke about the need to sell more guns.

Expand full comment

The smugness with which some Democrats are claiming victory in the war on Democracy is appalling. What is an armed teacher supposed to do that hundreds of armed police officers in Uvalde were unable to do. How many 10 year old boys sneaking up behind armed teachers, pulling their guns and unloading bursts of live ammo will it take before some measure of sanity blooms?

Expand full comment

How about the rest of the population? Why should children and parents and grandparents have to live in fear while the SCOTUS strips us of all our rights…except to bear arms?

Expand full comment

Am sure Roberts missed the irony of kvetching about feeling unsafe when the SCOTUS decision he voted for with makes all of us less safe

Expand full comment

And the Chief Justice chose not to assert that society generally should not live in fear—in fear of deadly weapons or of authoritarianism.

Expand full comment

Or young girls forced to live in fear of having to carry a rapist baby to term. Then what? The extreme irony and contradictions of false arguments Justice Roberts attempts to make really pisses me off. What an asshole! He should be shunned and ridiculed by all of society. Go back to Appalachia Johnny.

Expand full comment

It's a shame that Roberts didn't extend his concern for the safety of his own skin, to safety for all the people his court's decisions impact and for the safety of our democratic institutions his court is bent on destroying.

Expand full comment

And doesn’t extend that right to all citizens…

Expand full comment

It's a shame he singled out his own cohort! No one !! should live in fear in a civilized society that has available - that knows - other means to resolve disagreements.!!!!!! L&B&L and J*oy! meaning that every Joy contains an OY!

Expand full comment

Mary,

Do you know the title or subject of the forthcoming book??

Expand full comment

No, I don’t.

Expand full comment

OK,

Thank you.

Expand full comment

Excellent response

Expand full comment

Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "“A judicial system cannot and should not live in fear." Neither should election workers, police officers or whistleblowers. People exercising their constitutional right to have their voices heard should not be faced with AR - 15s and those who brandish them should not be pardoned. People driving down the street or taking a run through a neighborhood should not do so in fear of their lives.

Where are the protections for them?

Expand full comment

Sooo disappointed in Roberts! Does he even realize the damage he is contributing to? He is undermining the credibility of The Supreme Court. I’m angry, I’m sad, I’m disappointed, erghhhh

Expand full comment

But he's very photogenic.

Expand full comment

Erghhh…fascist central casting! Ha ha

Expand full comment

The cynicism and obvious failure of the Shelby County decision and the flood of voter suppression and gerrymandering it has allowed tells the world exactly who Roberts is. The only difference between him and the thuggish Alito is that Roberts wanted to lull America in to institutional oligarchy incrementally.

Expand full comment

Exactly. No other country has a proliferation of guns and gun violence outside a war zone as the United States.

Expand full comment

Shootings are now the number one cause of death among children.

Expand full comment

So much for following the Bible. It explicitly forbids child sacrifice.

Expand full comment

There was a small church congregation meeting in a strip mall in my neighborhood. The “minister” was recorded saying if a child is disobedient they should be stoned. And he strongly urged the killing of lgbtq people! Some of my women’s club friends and I joined the protest against them. They’ve been evicted again and moved on. They were in a neighboring community. But so sad people were listening to him!

Expand full comment

That "minister" has bible verses to back him up on the stoning, although he has to add some interpretation to get from the text to murdering lgbtq people. But that's hardly an excuse - the literal bible text also calls for killing adulterers, and for not eating pigs, and a lot of other things he surely does not practise. Plus it does call for befriending the stranger, which hateful preaching violates.

Expand full comment

Joan Friedman (MA, from NY) "So much for following the Bible. It explicitly forbids child sacrifice."

In fact, there are 32 Bible Verses about Child sacrifice

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Child-Sacrifice

In any event, know these are, also, used to justify the Anti-abortion position: "𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯-𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘜𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘶𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 '𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘥' 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦. 𝘏𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦. 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 '𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥' (𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘴 6:17), 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘯."

https://www.gotquestions.org/child-sacrifice.html

Expand full comment

The bible nowhere equates a fetus or a fertilized egg with a child. That's a theological add-on from somewhere in later Christianity. You can tell whose Bible references for anti-abortion are hypocritical by looking at how they advocate for living children. Anyone opposed to helping all children have food, shelter, and safe schools (see gun safety vs proliferation) is not pro-life.

The bible considers the pregnant woman/person to be a person whose life should be preserved. That's something the so-called pro-life politicians ignore.

Expand full comment

Troll alert!

Expand full comment

George T "Troll alert!"

I am unsure who you are referring to, me or

Joan Friedman (MA, from NY), but I was merely pointing out the (well, one of) current uses of those Bible verses. I have no opinion beyond that.

Joan has a valid (and well thought out) point of view that is shared by a large number of folks.

If you have found flaws in my (or Joan's) thinking, I would love to hear of them. Then I can understand who the "Troll" is.

Expand full comment
Jan 2, 2023·edited Jan 2, 2023

Justice Roberts fails to mention that three Justices lied in their confirmation hearings in re believing Roe v Wade was “settled law.” So, we have three people on the Supreme Court who, after being sworn in for hearings, think nothing of lying under oath. And two other justices -- Alito and Thomas -- are politically compromised. So, this leaves four Justices who might have judicial integrity. Small wonder sixtysome percent of Americans polled think the Supreme Court has lost its integrity. History shows that the Supreme Court decisions reflect the majority of the society over which it presides. This Supreme Court is out of synch with the real America. It won’t last the test of time. Kavenaugh and Coning Barrett will likely spend their last decade(s) writing dissenting opinions, existing as artifacts of an America that no longer exists.

Expand full comment

SCOTUS although technically part of the Constitution’s Article 3 judiciary, has been acting as a super legislature with absolutely no respect for precedent. Alito’s snarling 5-4 opinion in Dodd, supported by 3 justices who perjured themselves before congress as it arrogantly dismisses the 7-2 Roe Decision supplants Dredd Scott as the most outrageous in the Court’s history. Happy New Year.

Expand full comment

Snarling it was, too. Similar for Clarence Thomas’s threat to revisit Obergefell (but not inter-racial marriage.)

Expand full comment

I certainly hope so.

Expand full comment

Roberts' attempt to wrap himself in the flag of Brown v Board is simply preposterous. Thanks largely to the efforts of the Supreme Court to dismantle Brown, piece by piece, starting in the 1970s and continuing down to the present day, our public schools today are more segregated than they were in the late 1960s. They have been re-segregated under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court. And we are now living under the Roberts proclamation that "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That is not a legal principle. It is a bromide.

Expand full comment

That he seems to see the Dobbs decision as an achievement comparable to Brown is almost worse. Like he really doesn't get that while Brown was a giant step forward, Dobbs is a giant step backward? I'm trying to see things through a conservative white male lens and I'm failing miserably.

Expand full comment

Susanna,

What Roberts "gets" is his payment from the Federalist Society for doing their bidding.

Everything he writes is written for him and presented to him by his master: The Federalist Society.

Expand full comment

This may be literally true, but at the same time, I know how denial works. As a result, I strongly suspect that Roberts has it worked out in his mind that he is doing the right and possibly necessary thing. If you take a hard look at your own life, you can probably find an instance or two where you worked out a persuasive rationale for making a dubious choice. I know I sure as hell can.

Expand full comment

John Roberts has been opposed to voting rights for his whole career. I think he is trying to justify the court's partisan hackery because he doesn't want "the Roberts court" to go down in the infamy it richly deserves.

Expand full comment

We need a bromide after what these illegitimate justices are ganging up to do!

Expand full comment

Pepto-Bismol? Maybe ipecac?

Expand full comment

Ipecac. Definitely ipecac.

Expand full comment

Or maybe SCOTUS could use an enema -- you know, to flush out the waste matter?

Expand full comment

Isn’t it kinda like, “allowing them to learn to read was the biggest mistake we made” ?

Education, a proper and “equal” education is being dismantled by the forces that believe the notion that every child in a poorly funded area should overcome the roadblock to their future competing with children enjoying the birthright of a well funded schools

Roberts ignores the inherent, systemic issues of historical racism by glibly pronouncing that it shouldn’t exist, therefore it doesn’t exist (and vice versa)

In the warped world of legalese word salads, Roberts and his court twist reality by employing the same construct found in the ubiquitous Terms of Conditions required in every credit card agreement we routinely sign

They think that obfuscation makes them appear “courtly”. They think their base support is stupid along with their contempt for the rest of us

Roberts fears the same issues that worried Louis the XVI. He should

Expand full comment

Very well said.

As Dr. Richardson explains in the introduction to her book, “How The South Won the Civil War,” when the very wealthy white men we call the Founders said that All Men are created equal, they meant MEN and they meant white men of property.

The corrupt Roberts Six are doing everything in their considerable power to honor and promote the oligarchical ambitions of a our non-monarchical yet aristocratic founders. That The Six include a woman and a black man who’s race left slavery behind a mere 160 years ago is baffling.

Expand full comment

The Gang of 6 are what I call Modern Day Convenient Originalists

In other words the invent “originalist doctrine when convenient to their modern interpretations and ignore both language of the Constitution and intent of the founders when its not…..convenient; ie, they make shit up

Expand full comment

How dense does Roberts think those reading this transparently self serving remark are?

Expand full comment

Interesting question, esp. if you follow it with "WHY does he think his readers are this dense?" Living in a bubble does tend to limit one's exposure to other points of view. IMO Alito is the poster child for this, but Roberts is a runner-up for sure.

Expand full comment

The Dobbs decision reminds me more of Dred Scott, which declared fugitive slaves who had reached the north were still the property of southern enslavers and must be returned.

Expand full comment

Concur Joan. Sometimes years later, Federal Judges, at the trial court level get an opportunity to remedy gross injustices such as the WWII Korematsu case, 328 US 214.(1944). Korematsu's family & a dedicated lawyer team corrected the record before Presiding Judge Patel, she. was a smart & capable jurist.

Expand full comment

OK, but Dred Scott was decided in 1857. Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act in 1950, not only stating that the enslaved did not become free when they crossed into the North but imposing penalties on anyone who interfered. This interference in the affairs of non-slave slates did not go over well. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, allowing settlers in the two territories to decide whether they would be slave or free, led directly to "Bleeding Kansas" (remember John Brown?), which continued almost up to the outbreak of the Civil War. So Dred Scott v. Sandford flowed pretty logically from what had gone before.

In some ways Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization did too, in that abortion care was very hard to obtain in many parts of the country: women living in most red states were SOL. But at the same time it's a striking step backward, especially if you look at the "reasoning" of Alito, Thomas, et al.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the historical context. I only meant that both Dobbs and Dred Scott were horrendous decisions that reduced rights and freedom.

Expand full comment

Thank you Joan; "historical context" is why I am here --- to get real time history in historical context from HCR. FYI, Substack's Jay Kuo is an expert on SCOTUS and warns of "stays" and/or "holds" while patently unconstitutional acts are allowed to continue for consideration (of some sort) even when African American citizens are "effectively" denied the fundamental right & act of Voting. DItto Title 42, ditto ....

Expand full comment

They're both horrendous decisions for sure, but I see a difference between the two. Dred Scott was lamentably consistent with what had gone before; a decision in Scott's favor would have upended precedent, and that's not where the Court went. In Dobbs that's exactly where it did go: overturning five decades of supposedly settled law.

Expand full comment

I agee Susanna; I note historians such as HCR have also reported the significance of the multiple attempts (post-1848 into the pre-Civil War era) to expand human slavery into the new "Territories" & to "reach" into Free States after the Dred Scotts.

I do recall John Brown & and I have much more to learn about the 19th Century across many states and "territories" at that time partly because of the link (as you point out) of that Era to the present. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Fwiw, I will probably always feel ambivalent about John Brown. On one hand -- arrogant white male adventurism. On the other -- this might have been exactly what the moment called for. On the third hand (I've got half a dozen hands in waiting!), it's not hard to see a connection between John Brown and the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, et al. It all depends on what objective(s) that white male adventurism is aimed at.

Expand full comment

Male violence continues; I am simply not able to compare modern day vigilante psuedo "militias" to the pre-Civil War decade where I have only seen spirited discussion in the Letters to the Editor of the New York Review of Books years ago.

Professor?

Expand full comment

Sure you can! You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows and you don't need a professor to read up on what his contemporaries, abolitionist and otherwise, thought of John Brown and his tactics. It also helps to consider what these various people *thought* they were doing. (Consider the possibility that some of Brown's contemporaries probably dismissed him the way you dismiss the "vigilante pseudo 'militias'" of 1/6.) John Brown's actions looked rather different after the Civil War than they did in the run-up to it.

Expand full comment

❗️ ❗️ ❗️

Expand full comment

Jeff, I finally get your 3 red exclamation points besides the obvious. ! ! ! Certainly better than "like".

Expand full comment

Surely it is appropriate to remind Roberts that our children and adult citizens going about their daily business should not have to live in fear. How much longer do we have to put up with such narrow, self serving hypocrisy from those we look to to uphold the law in the interests of the people? I thought more of Robert’s - another mistake!

Expand full comment

His year end report is an example of how tone deaf he and the majority of the Court are. Hypocrite. We would like to be safe and we won't be as the half the states no longer require permits for guns.

Expand full comment

Yes, totally out of touch with the public. Not surprising, but irritating and frustrating.

Expand full comment

Well, he certainly led with his chin.

Expand full comment

...and his arrogant disdain for the average American’s ability to understand his mendacity. He cannot possibly believe this idiotic comparison. Roberts may be brilliant, but he’s become intellectually lazy. His christofacism appears to be rotting his brain. Could he possibly believe that using sophistry to insist that the Establishment Clause means there actually no Constitutional wall separating church and state?

Expand full comment

Reminded of FDR’s four freedoms one of which was freedom from fear. (Freedom from want needs to be addressed too.)

Expand full comment

But, but, but . . .FDR was Democrat, a pinko commie. Wasn’t he supposed to be erased as being part of critical race theory or something?

Expand full comment

Congrats! And I cannot wait for its publication. Thank you for keeping me informed and inspired in 2022 while not feeding my feelings of impending doom. The gorgeous photos of Maine helped. Onward to 2023.

Expand full comment

Chief Justice Roberts, in his annual judiciary report, spoke of the need to increase security to protect justices.

Huh? What about the many people killed because the Supreme Court is so ‘permissive’ on gun laws? What about the lives impacted and lost because of the Dodds decision that killed Roe V. Wade?

Perhaps, if the majority on the Stench Court adhered to an evolving Constitution instead of their bizarre adherence to ‘originalism,’ some Supreme Court justices would feel more ‘secure.’

Although a majority of justices ruled that abortion clinics were not permitted to build security fences around their clinics, the Supreme Court has authorized a major security fence around the Supreme Court Building. I find this ‘abortive.’

Expand full comment

Keith,

I agree. Since Roberts has defined "Security" as "Open Carry" he should just buy an AK-47 and open carry it to work right?

That is supposed to be security in the USA. Get with the program Mr. Roberts.

Expand full comment

Naw, he'll get either the AR-15 or the new Sig Army designed rifle.

Expand full comment

I wonder whether these AR-15s would be over or under their judicial robes. Once-silent Ginni/Clarence Thomas would be even scarier brandishing his weapon while being challenged for his ignorant ‘originalism.’

The thought makes me yearn for a modern St. Valentines Day Massacre with a courtly ambiance.

Expand full comment

Exactly

Expand full comment

Republicans have stated that they fear that Democrats will “stack” the Supreme Court with “leftist liberals”, yet they said nothing when disgraced former President Donald Trump did exactly that, “stacking” the court with lying, right wing fascists during his term in office.

All three, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett lied to Congress during their confirmation hearings about Roe v Wade, being settled law and although there was no law broken in their lies, one would expect better of members of the court to be honest.

If the Supreme Court is to return to its former respected stature, all three of them along with Justice Thomas and Alito should resign, for obvious reasons.

That would also be a good start to 2023.....

Expand full comment

The Court is contributing to the frustration that could lead to violence.

Expand full comment

Completely agree!!!!

Expand full comment

Leonard In all fairness (call it ‘originalism,’) Ginni Thomas should be included on the Liar LIar Pants on Fire list of Supreme Court Injustices resignation list.

Chief Justice Roberts should resign in frustration, after his Roberts Court has been a reprise of the wrong-headed British military disaster immortalized in Tennyson’s poem The Charge of the Light Brigade.

Expand full comment

Congratulations! I know what it feels like to submit a manuscript--that heady combination of exhilaration and wait-did-I-fact-check-that-footnote....I'm glad you're enjoying the start of what promises to be another intensely fascinating year.

Expand full comment

Eleanor You remind me of my experience (many years later) when I sought to get my second book published.

I was 25 when I completed my first book. With the complete innocence/ ignorance of youth, I decided which publisher was most appropriate for my book, delivered a manuscript to him (Frederick Praeger) stating that he had two weeks to say yes or no.

He said yes, published in New York and London, and sold over 7,000 copies (in 1960). By the way, my 1989 book ended up being self-published.

Expand full comment

Thank you for all you do for all of us, Heather. Including taking a day to rest. Starting 2023 off relaxed and refreshed is a good idea.

Expand full comment

My daughter and I attended a Black church in a very poor part of Charleston for several services during the Christmas season, 2019. The lovely pastor invited me to come to their New Year's Eve service. I was surprised: wasn't everybody out celebrating on New Year's Eve? Church on Christmas Eve, yes. But New Year's Eve? He told me that the Black congregations in the South sit through the night together. It's called "Watch Night". When the clock strikes midnight, everyone in the congregation hugs the people around them, saying, "We're FREE!!" It was one of the most moving experiences I have ever had. My hugs were welcomed, too. I chose to say, "I am SO GLAD that you are free!!"

Expand full comment

kdsherpa,

Yes, if you want to find love in the US, find a black community church. No doubt about.

It is one of of the true mysteries of America that the most downtrodden people are also the most loving.

Maybe there is something about being rich that makes folks hate?

Expand full comment

Mike, you are so right. Three times in my life, I have been so far down that I thought I could never get up again. Each time, a black woman reached down and pulled me up. I told a black woman about it, wondering why it was always black women who were my saviors. She said, "Don't you know, honey? It's because we KNOW suffering. And when we see it, we can't help but reach out."

Expand full comment

Happy New Year.. your consistent truth, always provided with grace, is so much appreciated...so very much needed in order to keep my head on straight!

Expand full comment

Yay for you! It must have been an amazing feeling hitting “send” after so many weeks/months working on this book. Congratulations and looking forward to reading once it is published.

Expand full comment

Congratulations on submitting the manuscript!! It’s a wonderful feeling (so for me it only extends to Law Review articles. I tried writing a book once...)

Expand full comment

Congratulations on sending off the MS.

And a very happy new year to you and yours!

Expand full comment

Happy New Year🎉 Heather and all of our family of Letters subscribers! I am looking forward to a much less tense year in 2023. For one thing, it isn't an election year this year. I also want to congratulate Heather with completing her manuscript. A real accomplishment!

I read the report of the Roberts report in The New York Times. I then opened the comments column. Most if all posters were not kind to Roberts or his report. His cowardness in not speaking of the Court's 2022 rulings seemed to rile most, especially concerning the Dobbs Decision. I think the next most popular issue with the report was about the Justices getting and Judges receiving extra protection from Congress for their safety, while ruling in favor of gun rights and stripping safety and a sense of security from the rest of us! Others mentioned how Trump's Supreme Court was going to be an albatross around Americans necks while we try to make progress on much of anything, like equality, climate, and just keeping the Constitution up to date with the rapidly changing world.

Expand full comment