The Supreme Court vs. The United States

Trump is loud. Roberts is permanent.

Trump screams his contempt for democracy into microphones.

John Roberts writes his contempt into law books.

One comes and goes with elections.

The other sits on the bench for life, quietly sharpening the legal knives that make Trumpism possible long after Trump is gone.

And Roberts actually told us how this works.

The C-SPAN confession: “If they don’t like what we’re doing… It’s just too bad.”

Back in 2009, Roberts sat on C-SPAN and said the most honest, damning sentence you’ll ever hear from a Supreme Court justice: “The most important thing for the public to understand is that we are not a political branch of government. They don’t elect us. If they don’t like what we’re doing, it’s more or less just too bad, other than impeachment.“

Translation in plain English:

• We’re not political; we decide the rules of politics once and for all.
• You don’t get a vote on us.
• If we wreck your voting rights, your maps, your protections – tough. Invent a spine in Congress and try impeachment.

That “not political” line is the most significant gaslighting in modern American history. The rulings the Roberts Court has actually done.

Exhibit A: Killing the Voting Rights Act

In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Roberts wrote the opinion that gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act by striking down the formula that forced states with a history of racist suppression to get federal approval before changing voting laws. Since then:

• States wasted no time in passing voter ID laws.
• Closed polling places.
• Purged voter rolls.
• Made it harder for Black, brown, and younger voters to cast a ballot.

But hey, remember: “We’re not a political branch.”

Sure.

Exhibit B: Legalizing extreme partisan gerrymandering

In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Roberts again writes the majority. The Court admits that partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic principles”… and then shrugs, saying federal courts can’t do anything about it.

The result?

• State legislatures now have a green light to redraw districts so that one party can rig the maps for a decade or more.
• Texas and other states are using this permission slip to lock in minority rule – fewer votes, more power.

That’s not neutral. That’s choosing who gets to choose the government. 

Again, totally “not political,” right?

Exhibit C: Trump v. United States – giving presidents a king’s cloak

Fast-forward to Trump v. United States (2024) – the case about whether a former president can be criminally prosecuted for what he did in office.

Roberts writes the majority again, and the Court holds that a president has:

• Absolute immunity for “core” constitutional powers
• Presumptive immunity for all other “official acts”
• No immunity for “unofficial” acts (which now becomes a giant fight over definitions)

In practice?

• Trump gets to delay and muddy criminal accountability for his efforts to overturn an election.
• Future presidents get the message: if you can cram it into “official acts,” you’re probably safe.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent characterized this logic as “utterly indefensible” and warned that the president is now “a king above the law” whenever he cloaks abuse of power in official language.

Does Roberts have a MAGA hat on? No.

Did he write the opinion that hands Trump and every future strongman a legal shield? Yes. 

That’s how elite support works: not with a rally sign, but with a citation.

This bias is politics – from his own mouth Roberts says, “We’re not political.”

His Court:

• Weakened voting rights.
• Greenlit extreme gerrymandering.
• Expanded presidential immunity in a case literally about Trump.

That’s not “calling balls and strikes.” That’s picking the team that owns the stadium, rewrites the rulebook, and locks the gates.

From his own mouth on C-SPAN, he told us: If you don’t like it, it’s “just too bad… other than impeachment.” 

So, no, this isn’t some neutral umpire who was tragically dragged into politics. This is a long project to rig the structure so minority rule can survive even when MAGA loses the popular vote.

Trump is the symptom. 

Roberts is part of the operating system.

The fix: Put the Court itself on the ballot

If we’re serious, we have to stop treating Supreme Court reform as a fringe idea and start treating it as a fundamental aspect of maintaining democracy.

Here’s the core: No one should have this much power for 30–40 years or more.

1. Term limits: 10–18 years, and then your Supreme Court term is done. Let’s ask the people of the United States what the best term limit is. After all, the younger generation will live with Robert’s geriatric and antiquated decisions.

There are already concrete proposals:

• Bills in Congress, such as the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act, would create staggered 18-year terms, ensuring that every president receives regular appointments.
• Legal scholars and reform groups are lining up behind 18 years as the sweet spot: long enough to be independent, yet short enough to be accountable to history, without being dominated by a single party.

The point is: No more lifetime monarchy in black robes.

2. Regular, predictable appointments

With 18-year terms and a new justice every two years:

• No more random “RBG dies under a Republican Senate” chaos.
• No more strategic retirements and health roulette.
• No more mega-fights where the entire system melts down over a single seat.

It becomes routine, like it should’ve been all along.

3. Ethics, transparency, and real consequences

At minimum:

• A binding ethics code with enforcement power.
• Strict rules on gifts, trips, and billionaire sugar daddies.
• Clear recusal rules when justices (or their spouses) have obvious political or financial entanglements.

If they want to say “it’s just too bad” to the public, then the public has every right to say: not anymore. 

“But it’s not on the ballot.” Then we PUT it there.

You’re right to say: This should be on the ballot.

Technically, a national term-limit amendment isn’t a simple check box. But politically? We can absolutely force it into the center of every election:

• Ask every candidate for Congress and state office:
  “Do you support 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and a binding ethics code? Yes or no.”
• Make Supreme Court reform a Top 3 campaign issue – right next to abortion rights and voting rights, because frankly, all of those run through this Court.
• Support and amplify the members who are already pushing for term limits and reform. They exist. They don’t have a loud enough choir behind them yet.

If they won’t commit, we treat that like what it is: a quiet endorsement of the Roberts status quo.

This is the change we need to move forward for the next 250 years.  

Americans, let’s do it!