His comments came after the judge said in March that the office holders should not be fired each due to a decision they disagree with.
On May 7, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial independence as a check of government power during a visit to the birthplace of Buffalo, New York.
Roberts, who serves as a Supreme Court debate and oversees federal judiciary, was taking part in a step-by-step conversation with US District Judge Lawrence Viraldo during the 125th anniversary of the U.S. District Court in western New York.
Judicial independence is “the only political science innovation in our constitution,” Roberts said.
In places like England, where Parliament existed for 800 years, the judiciary is not independent as it is part of Parliament. The judge “sitted in the House because Congress was the best,” he said.
“But in our constitution, the judiciary is a joint branch of the government, and, apart from others, has the authority to interpret the constitution as law and break the acts of Congress or the president.”
“And if the judiciary is not independent, that innovation won’t work. The job is… to check for overload in Congress or executives, which requires some degree of independence,” the Supreme Court asked for applause from the audience.
Comments from Roberts, who became Supreme Court justice in 2005 after being nominated for President George W. Bush, have repeatedly criticized him in recent months when members of his administration, President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans blocked or delayed the president’s agenda.
Roberts did not mention Trump or other office holders who criticized the judge’s ruling by name.
Roberts’ latest statement also reflected his official statement from March 18th. There, it appeared to be responding to Trump’s call to fire each federal judge who blocked the deportation of Venezuelan gang members under the president’s declaration.
At the May 7 gathering, Roberts said, “Each is not a way to register (judicial) decisions and differences.”
“That’s what we’re there,” he said in relation to the appeal process.
Vilardo said the current Supreme Court has received much criticism for overturning its own precedent. He is Dobbsv. Here is an example of Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).
“But that happens all the time, right?” the judge said.
“There are many misconceptions about the subject,” Roberts said.
When Earl Warren was the Supreme Court judge from 1953 to 1969, Roberts said the Supreme Court rejected an average 3.2 decision each year. When Warrenberger hosted from 1969 to 1986, the average was 3.6 a year decision, he said.
When William Lanequist was the Supreme Court judge between 1986 and 2005, the figure fell to an average of 2.4 cases a year, he said.
Roberts said he has served as a Supreme Court justice over the past 20 years, but that number has dropped to an average annual rate of 1.6 cases.
People “have a somewhat misleading view of the number of cases that have been overturned,” he said.
“A lot of people talk as if we’re covering up more. That’s the lowest since the 50s.”
“The idea that overturning precedents is always a bad thing… is pretty wrong,” added Roberts.
Virald said many of the decisions Roberts made through interpreting the constitution resulted in “real consequences.”
For example, the second amendment decision “more people have guns,” and Obamacare’s decision “more people have health insurance,” Obergefellv. Hodges (2015) “bringed same-sex marriage,” Vilardo said.
“Do you think about these practical consequences when interpreting the Constitution? Should the judiciary think about those practical consequences when interpreting the words of the Constitution?” the judge asked.
Roberts said, “Mainly you’re not in no to both of these questions, because if you do… you’re putting yourself in place of the legislator.”
It can be argued that the decision of the second amendment will lead to more people having guns and making more accidental gunfires, but it can also argue that Americans are in a better position if there is foreign invasion, such as the UK’s US invasion right after the amendment is adopted.
If you decide on a case based on the view of what you think is the best, he said, “You’ll replace your own views with that of the people who wrote the constitution, so no, I don’t think that is at least a big part of the way I do my job.”
You say, “All you really need to do is sit down and read it… in that proper context and trying to understand what they mean.”
Jackson appeared to respond to Trump’s criticism of some judges, but in his speech at a judicial meeting in Puerto Rico, he didn’t mention Trump, instead talking about “the elephant in the room.”
“The attacks are not random. They seem to be designed to threaten us serving in this important ability,” Jackson said.
“Threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, our system of government, and they risk ultimately undermining our constitution and the rule of law.”
Jackson sat in the High Court in June 2022 after being nominated for President Joe Biden.
Sam Dorman contributed to this report.
