John Roberts fought for decades to overturn Humphrey's Executor

[dalton99a]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics/john-roberts-1935-humphreys-executor-presidents-fire-anyone

John Roberts fought for decades to overturn Humphrey’s Executor
By Joan Biskupic

For more than 40 years, since his service as a young Reagan administration lawyer, Chief Justice John Roberts has pressed for an exceptionally powerful US president, one who could fire the heads of independent agencies at any time.

In one memo to the White House counsel in 1983, Roberts asserted, “the time is ripe to reconsider the constitutional anomaly of independent agencies.”

When he was appointed chief justice in 2005, he began laying the groundwork to reverse Supreme Court precedent that permitted Congress to limit the president’s firing power.

“Without such power,” Roberts wrote in a 2010 case, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Roberts’ effort climaxed on Monday as he led a majority to reverse a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, that had allowed Congress to restrict the president’s authority to fire agency heads to ensure their independence. From his seat at the center of the elevated bench, the chief justice observed that the court had been steadily backing away from the 1935 precedent, which he insisted conflicted with constitutional history and structure.

“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” he declared.

...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roberts is the most activist chief justice in history who is constantly bending America to his will - from voting rights to abortion to separation of church and state to strengthening the power of corporate overlords and oligarchs

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Roberts has been in power too long.

Justice term limits are over due. Nominees should be at least 50 years old, and serve for no more than 18 years.

[UpInArms]

2. He will go down in history

as the absolute worst example of a Chief Justice

[LakeVermilion]

3. I would guess that The Heritage Foundation...

has a lot of input into the formation of the right wing opinions.

[Wednesdays]

16. That, and the Federalist Society. nt

[sop]

4. "Without such power the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities;

the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Does this mean Trump will be held accountable now, John?

[dalton99a]

5. +1. Roberts already gave him immunity

[CaptainTruth]

12. In practice, Robert G. Dixon Jr did that in 1973.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. You really found one there /nt

[no_hypocrisy]

7. I don't see how this ruling helps anybody.

A republican President fires all the agencies' heads upon inauguration that the prior democratic President installed.

Vice versa when the democratic President assumes power.

In order to have functioning agencies, you need people with independence and experience and knowledge. You can't change agencies every time there's a new President.

[Wuddles440]

8. The MAGATS are increasingly emboldened...

with all the favorable rulings by the SCOTUS white-robbed hacks that the future threat of a Democrat becoming POTUS has essentially been eliminated. The damage already inflicted on the Federal bureaucracy has been devastating and potentially irreparable. They are confident that their rule will be effectively generational, if not, permanent.

[Martin68]

10. It helps the wealthy donors and corporations that support Trump.

[CaptainTruth]

13. It seems like a recipe for recurring politcal chaos...

...& ineffective government... which is of course exactly what Republicans want.

[Wednesdays]

15. You really think that in 2029,

...assuming a Democratic President takes office, that there won't be Repug lawsuits filed blocking their attempts to dismiss their cronies? And that the SCOTUS won't back their suits?



Okay, now pull the other leg.

[Martin68]

9. All the judges provided by the Federal Society's judge pipeline have been trying to give the president total

control of ALL agencies that regulate in the public's benefit rather than the of corporations. They managed to give Tump control of everything but the Fed, and the terms of that (can only be removed for cause) may be open to interpretation.

[Zackzzzz]

11. In 83, did Roberts see that he would become a constitutional anomaly?

[dave99]

14. why did he live so long ?

[GiqueCee]

17. Roberts has...

... all but abandoned any pretense of impartiality, if there ever was one.
Even the slightest hint of honesty or integrity is anathema to Republicans; they cannot conceive of governance without lying, cheating, stealing, and, when some drunken moron with Nazi tattoos deems it necessary, murdering children.
It is axiomatic that Trump and his evil minions are going to do everything possible to rig the mid terms in their favor. We cannot let that happen. Trump is an out-of-control monster, and would have zero compunction about starting another civil war to get his own way. It is sickening to realize how many people would be fine with that.
Roberts is all in on a Unitary Executive, and every bit as evil as Trump, just not as stupid. That, and the power of his position, makes him all the more dangerous to the survival of America as a democratic republic.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. Roberts other goal was gutting the Voting Rights Act

Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.

Why John Roberts’ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is clearly aware of public perceptions related to the high court, though he apparently wants Americans to see him and fellow justices as above the political fray. The Associated Press reported on his latest public remarks:

“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” he said. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”

His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.

As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not “part of the political process … and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.”.....

Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as “political actors”? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.

But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as “political actors” is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts’ remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.”....

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, “Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy.” Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.

The tarnishing of the Supreme Court — its credibility, its integrity and its reputation — has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, that’s their right, but if they want to help restore the institution’s standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Court’s problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.

Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.