The annual missive was originally intended to stimulate dialogue with Congress. It's become something far less productive—and a symptom of a broader (and problematic) insularity
Regarding the Chief's Annual Report, is it possible that part of the Chief's recent hesitance to engage stems from a value judgment about the Court's current bargaining position? Essentially that while Burger and Rehnquist thought they had a good shot at *getting* something from Congress, Roberts is now worried that the Court's institutional clout is in such a precarious position that any substantive engagement with Congress would either further erode the Court's legitimacy or erode the Court's independence.
It's not a *good* reason to avoid the conversation with Congress, but maybe a logical one? A sort of institutionally conservative argument that maybe the Chief is interested in resolving some systematic flaws, but assesses that the only thing worse than no congressional engagement is bad congressional engagement.
As always Steve Vladeck is enlightening. The trivia of the Chief Justice title helped me to form my thoughts about John Roberts' Year End Report. As Chief Justice of the United States [overseeing all of Article III] and not merely Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it seems particularly galling that the Chief did not reflect on the impact of what his court has decided for these United States. In one year, the Court pulled the plug on gun safety, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, EPA & CDC authorities. It has ignored the activist election denialism by one wife of an Associate Justice, the subject of whose recusal has never been mentioned...and all The Chief Justice of the United States can come up with is a scold about safety for the “Brethren?” Yes, safety and security is a must not only for the Supreme Court, but for all of us in these United States. Some inward reflection as to what the Supreme Court decided in the last term that has impacted safely and security overall is at a minimum, warranted.
Regarding the Chief's Annual Report, is it possible that part of the Chief's recent hesitance to engage stems from a value judgment about the Court's current bargaining position? Essentially that while Burger and Rehnquist thought they had a good shot at *getting* something from Congress, Roberts is now worried that the Court's institutional clout is in such a precarious position that any substantive engagement with Congress would either further erode the Court's legitimacy or erode the Court's independence.
It's not a *good* reason to avoid the conversation with Congress, but maybe a logical one? A sort of institutionally conservative argument that maybe the Chief is interested in resolving some systematic flaws, but assesses that the only thing worse than no congressional engagement is bad congressional engagement.
As always Steve Vladeck is enlightening. The trivia of the Chief Justice title helped me to form my thoughts about John Roberts' Year End Report. As Chief Justice of the United States [overseeing all of Article III] and not merely Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it seems particularly galling that the Chief did not reflect on the impact of what his court has decided for these United States. In one year, the Court pulled the plug on gun safety, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, EPA & CDC authorities. It has ignored the activist election denialism by one wife of an Associate Justice, the subject of whose recusal has never been mentioned...and all The Chief Justice of the United States can come up with is a scold about safety for the “Brethren?” Yes, safety and security is a must not only for the Supreme Court, but for all of us in these United States. Some inward reflection as to what the Supreme Court decided in the last term that has impacted safely and security overall is at a minimum, warranted.