CNN legal analyst and John Roberts biographer Joan Biskupic reported on Tuesday’s CNN Newsroom that Roberts tried and ultimately failed to persuade his “very hard-right” colleagues to only uphold Mississippi’s pro-life law, but go no further in the recent Dobbs case. Roberts’s failure was also taken a sign that the Court has discredited his desire to be seen as non-political and non-partisan.
Co-host Poppy Harlow asked, “I wonder what you think this says about the Court going forward for the next decades, is the—is the-- Court, you know, when Anthony Kennedy was on it and you could -- you saw agreements made and you saw votes changed at the last minute and you saw some slower movements, not in all cases. Is that gone?”
Biskupic suggested that it is because despite his attempts to moderate Dobbs, Roberts is not that different than the other conservatives:
You know, that's a great question, Poppy and I—I-- have to say, that the chief, for as much as he really tried to stall what happened in this Dobbs case, he is part of a six-justice super-majority that is plowing through the law in so many other areas. You know, on gun control, on regulations of the environment, on religious liberties, favoring religious conservatives, so this is such a different Court overall, with virtually no middle.
For someone who covers the Court and write biographies on the justices, Biskupic then offered up some confused analysis, “Now, on abortion rights, there was a middle, with John Roberts by himself, being the only one who wanted to preserve Roe, but yet uphold this Mississippi law, but for the long haul, how could this Supreme Court not be defined by what happened in Dobbs?”
Even if Roberts got his way, Roe and Casey’s standards would have been overthrown, that’s why Mississippi’s law was being challenged. What makes Roberts wrong is that he just wanted to redraw the arbitrary line at a different point in pregnancy.
Arbitrary line drawing is political by nature, but co-host Jim Sciutto portrayed the Dobbs majority as the political ones, “So where does that leave his legacy? Because his intention was to, if you're going to move big precedents like this, that you do so slowly, but also you at the same time, he hoped, preserve the impression of the courts as a non-political body. Where does that leave his legacy?”
Biskupic agreed, “He has always argued that the courts are not partisan, they're not political, and he's—he’s-- tried to say, you know, we are neutral decision makers, we're not politicians in robes. But you have a decision like this, Jim and Poppy, and how can it not be perceived as being political.”
Roe was once widely panned, even by liberals, but again it was conservatives who were accused of doing the politicizing, as Biskupic declared, “In part because Donald Trump vowed to appoint only justices who would overturn Roe and the five very hard-right Republican appointees are the five who are in the majority, who would not budge in the end, despite the pressure from a usually very persuasive chief justice.”
Given how the media freaks out over 15-week abortion bans, it is likely they would’ve done the same in response to a Dobbs decision that reflected Roberts’s wishes.
This segment was sponsored by Arby’s.
Here is a transcript for the July 26 show:
CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto
7/26/2022
9:42 AM ET
POPPY HARLOW: Joan, so people understand, I mean, you know, you are the author of really the definitive book on John Roberts, The Chief, and you know so well the court that he wanted this be viewed as by the public, and I just wonder, you know, he's the one who launched the investigation into the leaked draft of Dobbs, which overturned Roe.
I wonder what you think this says about the Court going forward for the next decades, is the—is the-- Court, you know, when Anthony Kennedy was on it and you could -- you saw agreements made and you saw votes changed at the last minute and you saw some slower movements, not in all cases—
JIM SCIUTTO: Yeah.
HARLOW: -- Is that gone?
JOAN BISKUPIC: You know, that's a great question, Poppy and I—I-- have to say, that the chief, for as much as he really tried to stall what happened in this Dobbs case, he is part of a six-justice super-majority that is plowing through the law in so many other areas.
You know, on gun control, on regulations of the environment, on religious liberties, favoring religious conservatives, so this is such a different Court overall, with virtually no middle. Now, on abortion rights, there was a middle, with John Roberts by himself, being the only one who wanted to preserve Roe, but yet uphold this Mississippi law, but for the long haul, how could this Supreme Court not be defined by what happened in Dobbs?
That's why, you know, I've termed it, you know, it’s the defining case of his generation for sure. I really can't imagine anything bigger. It is just that there is so much more that is affecting Americans and he's right there with the conservative super-majority moving ahead.
SCIUTTO: So where does that leave his legacy? Because his intention was to, if you're going to move big precedents like this, that you do so slowly, but also you at the same time, he hoped, preserve the impression of the courts as a non-political body. Where does that leave his legacy?
BISKUPIC: You know, that's exactly the point that John Roberts has been pushing since day one, when he was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. He has always argued that the courts are not partisan, they're not political, and he's—he’s-- tried to say, you know, we are neutral decision makers, we're not politicians in robes.
But you have a decision like this, Jim and Poppy, and how can it not be perceived as being political.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
BISKUPIC: In part because Donald Trump vowed to appoint only justices who would overturn Roe and the five very hard-right Republican appointees are the five who are in the majority, who would not budge in the end, despite the pressure from a usually very persuasive chief justice.
