Chief Justice Roberts says personal hostility toward judges has 'got to stop'

[mystery-ak]

Chief Justice Roberts says personal hostility toward judges has 'got to stop'

“Judges around the country work very hard to get it right, and if they don’t, their opinions are subject to criticism,” Roberts said at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “But personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it’s got to stop."
By Misty Severi

Published: March 17, 2026 5:38pm

Updated: March 17, 2026 7:57pm


Chief Justice John Roberts urged Americans on Tuesday to stop personal attacks on judges, claiming such attacks were “dangerous” and a “problem.”

The warning comes after the Supreme Court justice warned elected officials last year not to attack judges because the rhetoric could lead to actual violence against members of the judiciary.

“Judges around the country work very hard to get it right, and if they don’t, their opinions are subject to criticism,” Roberts said at an event at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “But personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it’s got to stop."

Roberts' latest comment comes after President Donald Trump recently criticized the Supreme Court for invalidating his tariffs that were imposed on many countries, claiming the Supreme Court has “become little more than a weaponized and unjust Political Organization."

The chief justice said the criticisms were not stemming from just one "political perspective," and that the main issue is when the criticism is levied against the judges themselves rather than their legal opinion, according to The Hill.

“You get used to the criticism right away, and it can very much be healthy,” Roberts said. “We don’t believe that we’re flawless in any way, and it’s important that our decisions are subjected to scrutiny, and they are. The problem, sometimes, is that the criticism can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities.”

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/john-roberts-urges-americans-stop-personal-attacks-judges

[DefiantMassRINO]

Judges should stick to adjudicating written laws and not involve themselves in political activism.

Since Federal judges are appointed, and not elected, hostility is the only means by which the unwashed masses can hold them accountable.

[Timber Rattler]

“Judges around the country work very hard to get it right, and if they don’t, their opinions are subject to criticism,” Roberts said at an event at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

No they don't.  And it's hard to believe that Roberts is so naive or willfully blind that he can't see what they're actually doing, especially his buddy Boasberg.

[cato potatoe]

Roberts is 71.  He could enjoy a perfectly quiet retirement. 

[Timber Rattler]

Roberts is 71.  He could enjoy a perfectly quiet retirement.

I saw either a post or story yesterday from someone with experience that Roberts looked like he was exhibiting the early stages of Parkinson's disease during that sit-down. 

[Cyber Liberty]

No they don't.  And it's hard to believe that Roberts is so naive or willfully blind that he can't see what they're actually doing, especially his buddy Boasberg.

I wonder if Roberts was this outspoken when Schumer was threatening SC Justices?

[Kamaji]

He’s exactly spot on. And to the extent a lower court judge makes a mistake - that’s what the appeals process is for. 

[Free Vulcan]

I wonder if Roberts was this outspoken when Schumer was threatening SC Justices?

Yep. Sure doesn't have much credibility on the issue.

[DefiantMassRINO]

If a lower court judge's ruling is overwritten by a higher court, shouldn't there be something punitive that can be applied to the lower court judge?

If a lower court judge gets over-ruled by higher courts more then his peers, shouldn't there be some sanction against the lower court judge available?

There is no mechanism for holding incompetent or radical lower court judges accountable for an excessive % of over-turned decisions.

If Radical / Incompetent lower court judges hang around long enough, an equally radical or incompetent politicians may appoint that person to a higher court.

By process of reverse Darwinism, we end up with higher courts staffed with incompetent / radical judges.

Both sides are exploiting the unaccountability of lower court judges to utilize them as a shadow legislative and executive branch.

Congress (insert chirping crickets here) needs to step up and reform the Federal Juidiciary.  I doubt Congress will act, because both parties leverage judicial activism when they are in the minority to obstruct the party in power.

If you shop for the right judge, in the right court, in the right district, you'll get the predetermined ruling you want and have it applied nationally - no Congress nor President needed.

[libertybele]

Roberts is 71.  He could enjoy a perfectly quiet retirement.

 

[Free Vulcan]

He’s exactly spot on. And to the extent a lower court judge makes a mistake - that’s what the appeals process is for.

That's like saying the thug with the yard long rap sheet must be let go because he had a bad upbringing.

These aren't 'mistakes' they are either incompetency or complicity.

[Kamaji]

That's like saying the thug with the yard long rap sheet must be let go because he had a bad upbringing.

These aren't 'mistakes' they are either incompetency or complicity.

Utter rot.  The entire judicial system is set up to be self-correcting; that’s why there’s an appeals process. Geez.

And if a judge is falling too far short of the mark, then there’s impeachment. 

Making threats against judges is not a valid option. Used to be that only progressives and other fascists thought it was a valid option.  How times have changed.

[DefiantMassRINO]

It comes to this because Congress is a failing institution that fails to hold the judiciary and its judges to account for judicial malpractice.

Utter rot.  The entire judicial system is set up to be self-correcting; that’s why there’s an appeals process. Geez.

And if a judge is falling too far short of the mark, then there’s impeachment. 

Making threats against judges is not a valid option. Used to be that only progressives and other fascists thought it was a valid option.  How times have changed.

[Kamaji]

It comes to this because Congress is a failing institution that fails to hold the judiciary and its judges to account for judicial malpractice.

Really?  How so?

[Free Vulcan]

Utter rot.  The entire judicial system is set up to be self-correcting; that’s why there’s an appeals process. Geez.

And if a judge is falling too far short of the mark, then there’s impeachment. 

Making threats against judges is not a valid option. Used to be that only progressives and other fascists thought it was a valid option.  How times have changed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 

Appeals courts should correct for genuine legal issues, not judicial activism to the point of having to tell a judge that he doesn't even have the jurisdiction to make that decision.

Aw but he just 'made a mistake'. He's really a good boy. He's just in a bad situation. And he's got a mama.

[Cyber Liberty]

It comes to this because Congress is a failing institution that fails to hold the judiciary and its judges to account for judicial malpractice.

 

This would be happening, but Democrats are fine with using the Court to get their way, instead of passing actual laws.  If we started impeaching the rouge Judges, the Dems will just close ranks and refuse to convict in the Senate.

[Kamaji]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 

Appeals courts should correct for genuine legal issues, not judicial activism to the point of having to tell a judge that he doesn't even have the jurisdiction to make that decision.

Aw but he just 'made a mistake'. He's really a good boy. He's just in a bad situation. And he's got a mama.

Your statement is incoherent. If what you call judicial activism is in accordance with guiding precedent, then it’s the correct decision, no matter how much you may hate it.  On the other hand, if it’s not consistent with guiding precedent, then it’s not a correct legal decision, no matter how much you may approve of it, and it should be overturned. 

Why don’t you try a novel (for you) exercise: instead of bloviating in such a free-form manner, try reading the opinion and identifying the legal mistake in the decision. Engage with the material for once.

[Free Vulcan]

Your statement is incoherent. If what you call judicial activism is in accordance with guiding precedent, then it’s the correct decision, no matter how much you may hate it.  On the other hand, if it’s not consistent with guiding precedent, then it’s not a correct legal decision, no matter how much you may approve of it, and it should be overturned. 

Why don’t you try a novel (for you) exercise: instead of bloviating in such a free-form manner, try reading the opinion and identifying the legal mistake in the decision. Engage with the material for once.

Appeals court rules judge had no jurisdiction to order release of Mahmoud Khalil

The Trump administration scored a major win Thursday in its fight to deport anti-Israel activist and former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil when a federal appeals court overturned a decision freeing him from custody – a ruling that could lead to a showdown at the US Supreme Court.

A split three-judge panel on the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit Court of Appeals found Newark federal Judge Michael Farbiarz didn’t have the authority to order Khalil’s release from a Louisiana detention facility this past June.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/15/us-news/appeals-court-rules-judge-had-no-jurisdiction-to-order-release-of-mahmoud-khalil/

-----------

There was no 'legal mistake' because their was no jurisdiction in the first place. Either the judge was incompetent or he was knowingly abusing his position for partisan activist purposes. There isn't much in between.

By your logic, if a circuit court judge decreed that he was taking over and running the war with Iran, then the President must bow and let him do it, at least until the Appeals court disagrees. And there would be nothing wrong with that if the judge 'made that mistake'.

Is that your position?

[DefiantMassRINO]

Precedent is not law.  I gets treated by such, but it's still a judicial fiat that has yet to be codified by a legislative body of the people's representatives.

Judges are not kings in black robes.  They are referees and umpires - they don't write the rules, they interpret and apply the rules.  They also remedy harms, as the rules allow and prescribe.

Umpires that excessively call 'balks' get disciplined to maintain the integrity of the League and the Game as measured by game TV ratings, attendance, and revenue.

The integrity of the Federal Juducial System is in question.

[Cyber Liberty]

Appeals court rules judge had no jurisdiction to order release of Mahmoud Khalil

The Trump administration scored a major win Thursday in its fight to deport anti-Israel activist and former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil when a federal appeals court overturned a decision freeing him from custody – a ruling that could lead to a showdown at the US Supreme Court.

A split three-judge panel on the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit Court of Appeals found Newark federal Judge Michael Farbiarz didn’t have the authority to order Khalil’s release from a Louisiana detention facility this past June.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/15/us-news/appeals-court-rules-judge-had-no-jurisdiction-to-order-release-of-mahmoud-khalil/

-----------

There was no 'legal mistake' because their was no jurisdiction in the first place. Either the judge was incompetent or he was knowingly abusing his position for partisan activist purposes. There isn't much in between.

By your logic, if a circuit court judge decreed that he was taking over and running the war with Iran, then the President must bow and let him do it, at least until the Appeals court disagrees. And there would be nothing wrong with that if the judge 'made that mistake'.

Is that your position?

That is happening far too often, and it's overloading the Dockets of the Circuits and Supreme Courts who have to slap the gnats down.  The Circuit Courts are a weak link in the process.

[Cyber Liberty]

Precedent is not law.  I gets treated by such, but it's still a judicial fiat that has yet to be codified by a legislative body of the people's representatives.

Judges are not kings in black robes.  They are referees and umpires - they don't write the rules, they interpret and apply the rules.  They also remedy harms, as the rules allow.

Since O'Bastard and Biteme started appointing Judges, the Courts have gotten involved in setting policy and not just calling Strikes and Balls.

[DefiantMassRINO]

They've been calling single-base hits as inside-the-park homeruns.

Since O'Bastard and Biteme started appointing Judges, the Courts have gotten involved in setting policy and not just calling Strikes and Balls.

[Cyber Liberty]

They've been calling single-base hits as inside-the-park homeruns.

That were clear Outs, to extend the Baseball analogy....

[Timber Rattler]

Utter rot.  The entire judicial system is set up to be self-correcting; that’s why there’s an appeals process. Geez.

But it's not, and therein lies the big problem, especially with the District court judges.

And if a judge is falling too far short of the mark, then there’s impeachment.

Well that was considered but again John Roberts put a stop to such talk...

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/03/aba-president-statement-re-roberts-rejecting-impeachment-calls/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/chief-justice-roberts-rejects-trumps-call-for-impeaching-a-judge-who-ruled-against-him

And how do you impeach and remove all the miscreants anyway, especially with Congress as broken as it is?

 

Making threats against judges is not a valid option. Used to be that only progressives and other fascists thought it was a valid option.  How times have changed.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Utter rot.  The entire judicial system is set up to be self-correcting; that’s why there’s an appeals process. Geez.

And if a judge is falling too far short of the mark, then there’s impeachment. 

Making threats against judges is not a valid option. Used to be that only progressives and other fascists thought it was a valid option.  How times have changed.

Impeachment is not the same as removal from office.

It does nothing to a judge that is out of control.

[Cyber Liberty]

Impeachment is not the same as removal from office.

It does nothing to a judge that is out of control.

Boasberg is a leading example of this....

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It comes to this because Congress is a failing institution that fails to hold the judiciary and its judges to account for judicial malpractice.

IMO, it is due to way too many in congress being lawyers.

They protect their own.

All the diversity crap we have heard over the years has conveniently failed to notice that congress does not reflect the diversity of the people they represent.  Lawyers make up 40% of congress yet are only 0.35% of total population.

[catfish1957]

Phooey, didn't see girly boy Justice Roberts get is panties in such a uproar after this....  Enough of this selective outrage. 

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,”  “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” 

Chuck Schumer....  Outside SCOTUS... March 5, 2020

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Appeals court rules judge had no jurisdiction to order release of Mahmoud Khalil

The Trump administration scored a major win Thursday in its fight to deport anti-Israel activist and former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil when a federal appeals court overturned a decision freeing him from custody – a ruling that could lead to a showdown at the US Supreme Court.

A split three-judge panel on the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit Court of Appeals found Newark federal Judge Michael Farbiarz didn’t have the authority to order Khalil’s release from a Louisiana detention facility this past June.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/15/us-news/appeals-court-rules-judge-had-no-jurisdiction-to-order-release-of-mahmoud-khalil/

-----------

There was no 'legal mistake' because their was no jurisdiction in the first place. Either the judge was incompetent or he was knowingly abusing his position for partisan activist purposes. There isn't much in between.

By your logic, if a circuit court judge decreed that he was taking over and running the war with Iran, then the President must bow and let him do it, at least until the Appeals court disagrees. And there would be nothing wrong with that if the judge 'made that mistake'.

Is that your position?

Silence, of course, as some believe a judge is the ultimate authority at all times.

It has been hogwash ever since it was first uttered.

[Cyber Liberty]

IMO, it is due to way too many in congress being lawyers.

They protect their own.

All the diversity crap we have heard over the years has conveniently failed to notice that congress does not reflect the diversity of the people they represent.  Lawyers make up 40% of congress yet are only 0.35% of total population.

I think one has to be a lawyer to think this is all Jim Dandy.  "If you don't like the results, you can appeal!"  That's fine if you have deep pockets or are a Government entity.  John Q Public is SOL when a court gacks a Decision.

[Cyber Liberty]

Phooey, didn't see girly boy Justice Roberts get is panties in such a uproar after this....  Enough of this selective outrage. 

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,”  “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” 

Chuck Schumer....  Outside SCOTUS... March 5, 2020

I mentioned this upthread.  Roberts didn't work up any upset when the Decision in Dobbs got leaked either.

[libertybele]

Phooey, didn't see girly boy Justice Roberts get is panties in such a uproar after this....  Enough of this selective outrage. 

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,”  “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” 

Chuck Schumer....  Outside SCOTUS... March 5, 2020

What does Chuckie then have on Roberts??

[DCPatriot]

What does Chuckie then have on Roberts??

Photos of him frolicking with VERY young girls in a swimming pool on a Caribbean island perhaps??   

[Kamaji]

Appeals court rules judge had no jurisdiction to order release of Mahmoud Khalil

The Trump administration scored a major win Thursday in its fight to deport anti-Israel activist and former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil when a federal appeals court overturned a decision freeing him from custody – a ruling that could lead to a showdown at the US Supreme Court.

A split three-judge panel on the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit Court of Appeals found Newark federal Judge Michael Farbiarz didn’t have the authority to order Khalil’s release from a Louisiana detention facility this past June.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/15/us-news/appeals-court-rules-judge-had-no-jurisdiction-to-order-release-of-mahmoud-khalil/

-----------

There was no 'legal mistake' because their was no jurisdiction in the first place. Either the judge was incompetent or he was knowingly abusing his position for partisan activist purposes. There isn't much in between.

By your logic, if a circuit court judge decreed that he was taking over and running the war with Iran, then the President must bow and let him do it, at least until the Appeals court disagrees. And there would be nothing wrong with that if the judge 'made that mistake'.

Is that your position?

Yes, there was a legal mistake - the lower court made a mistake of law when it concluded that it had jurisdiction. 

This sort of issue happens all the time, particularly in courts of more limited jurisdiction (like the Tax Court) and it arises out of precisely the sort of legal error the appellate system exists to fix.

Get a grip and stop bloviating.  You’re beginning to act like a progressive.

[catfish1957]

Photos of him frolicking with VERY young girls in a swimming pool on a Caribbean island perhaps??   

I wish I could find the report, but it was shown long ago, that Roberts mysteriously leans left on close votes.  I think he is compromised. 

[Cyber Liberty]

What does Chuckie then have on Roberts??

The rumor on the streets has been there's something sketchy about Roberts' adoption of his children.  The rumor caught fire when Roberts issued the Decision that O'Bastardcare was legal because the fines for non-compliance were actually a tax, not a fine.  People watching the case closely were mystified because neither side made or refuted that argument.

This is insidious because nobody was allowed to challenge that presumption at Trial.  Lawyers have assured me this is fine and dandy, it happens all the time that Judges make up arguments as they are going along....

[Kamaji]

The rumor on the streets has been there's something sketchy about Roberts' adoption of his children.  The rumor caught fire when Roberts issued the Decision that O'Bastardcare was legal because the fines for non-compliance were actually a tax, not a fine.  People watching the case closely were mystified because neither side made or refuted that argument.

This is insidious because nobody was allowed to challenge that presumption at Trial.  Lawyers have assured me this is fine and dandy, it happens all the time that Judges make up arguments as they are going along....

[DCPatriot]

I wish I could find the report, but it was shown long ago, that Roberts mysteriously leans left on close votes.  I think he is compromised.

He's essentially stated that regardless of what is...or isn't in the Constitution, he would take into consideration the current societal trends.

And right there is a HUGE problem!, IMO.

[Kamaji]

He's essentially stated that regardless of what is...or isn't in the Constitution, he would take into consideration the current societal trends.

And right there is a HUGE problem!, IMO.

Citation?

[DCPatriot]

LOL!   

Was going to set odds on how long it would be before you showed up with a facepalm!!! 

[Kamaji]

LOL!   

Was going to set odds on how long it would be before you showed up with a facepalm!!! 

As often as the stupidity merits it. 

[DefiantMassRINO]

Laws are meant to be written.  Just ask God.

The Ten Commandments are Laws, not precedents subject to change and interpretation based upon fickle popular trends.

[Fishrrman]

As I posted just yesterday, EVERY judge in the United States, regardless of position, lowest municipal court to the Supreme Court itself, ought to be "removeable" by means of a public recall, with the simple majority rule effective (50% + 1).

This will tend to keep them on the straight-and-narrow pathway.

Who here remembers the name, "Rose Bird"?
Who was she?
What happened to her?

[Bigun]

That's like saying the thug with the yard long rap sheet must be let go because he had a bad upbringing.

These aren't 'mistakes' they are either incompetency or complicity.

 

[Bigun]

This would be happening, but Democrats are fine with using the Court to get their way, instead of passing actual laws.  If we started impeaching the rouge Judges, the Dems will just close ranks and refuse to convict in the Senate.

And they have been doing exactly that since at least since the dawn of the twentieth century. Actually, since 1865.

[Bigun]

Silence, of course, as some believe a judge is the ultimate authority at all times.

It has been hogwash ever since it was first uttered.

   The brotherhood of the bar THINKs it rules the country, but they don't! Not by a long shot.

I wrote this thirty plus years ago (Bill Clinton was president at the time) and the local newspaper published it as a guest editorial.

James Madison, author of the US Constitution, wrote:

"No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped  with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that ... the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the  same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

To avoid the "same hands" accumulation of power, the Constitution incorporated a system of "separation  of powers" and "checks and balances". This system created three separate  branches of government. The Legislative (Congress), which makes the laws,  the Judiciary (the Courts), which interprets the laws and the Executive (the Presidency), which enforces the laws. By separating the powers of government in this manner it was intended that each branch would serve as a "check" and "balance" to the powers of the other two. This was done in order to make certain that the government would never possess sufficient power to oppress the people.

Our government currently looks like this:

•   The Judicial branch is, of necessity, composed of 100% lawyers
•   The executive office is currently held by a lawyer
•   And the within the 535 legislative seats of the U. S. Congress there are more lawyers than all other professions combined

I would submit that Mr. Madison’s greatest fear has been realized despite his best effort (Via the Constitution) to prevent it. Lawyer/judges now make the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws and have effectively turned our Constitutional Republic into a Juristocracy,  thus defeating the spirit, intent and purpose of the Constitution.

[Kamaji]

[Cyber Liberty]

So you do think the Bar runs the country?

[Kamaji]

So you do think the Bar runs the country?

I think the stupidity level on this thread was getting to facepalm levels again.

I’d be happy to have a discussion about what I think, but if I want to talk to myself there are better places to do so.

[Bigun]

That's what you do when you have nothing left to say.