(Photo
by
Jabin
Botsford
–
Pool/Getty
Images)
Legitimate
institutions
don’t
go
around
bragging
how
they’re
legitimate
because
it
is
understood.
Illegitimate
institutions,
however,
really
like
to
yell
and
scream
about
their
authority.
Think
about
it,
in
elementary
school
the
green
substitute
teacher
would
urgently
raise
their
voice
in
a
futile
bid
for
the
class’s
attention
yet
the
battle-axe
from
across
the
hall
that
probably
taught
your
grandmother
could
silence
the
class
with
a
single
look.
You
can’t
convince
people
of
your
legitimacy,
it
is
earned.
On
that
note,
on
Friday,
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
spoke
at
the
Bench
&
Bar
Conference
of
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
10th
Circuit.
And
you
could
tell,
despite
not
facing
a
midterm
election
himself,
the
Court’s
sinking
poll
numbers
were
on
his
mind.
As
reported
by
the
Washington
Post,
Roberts
used
his
time
to
defend
the
legitimacy
of
the
Court:
“The
court
has
always
decided
controversial
cases
and
decisions
always
have
been
subject
to
intense
criticism
and
that
is
entirely
appropriate,”
Roberts
told
a
gathering
of
judges
and
lawyers
in
Colorado
Springs.
But
he
said
that
disagreement
with
the
court’s
role
of
deciding
what
the
law
is
has
transformed
into
criticism
of
its
legitimacy.“You
don’t
want
the
political
branches
telling
you
what
the
law
is.
And
you
don’t
want
public
opinion
to
be
the
guide
of
what
the
appropriate
decision
is,”
said
Roberts,
who
added,
to
laughter,
“Yes,
all
of
our
opinions
are
open
to
criticism.
In
fact,
our
members
do
a
great
job
of
criticizing
some
opinions
from
time
to
time.
But
simply
because
people
disagree
with
an
opinion
is
not
a
basis
for
criticizing
the
legitimacy
of
the
court.”
But,
here’s
where
we
know
John
Roberts
is
fibbing,
at
least
a
little
bit.
Everything
we
know
about
how
the
awful
Dobbs
v.
Jackson
Women’s
Health
decision
went
down
is
that
Roberts
*knew*
stripping
rights
away
from
folks
after
50
years
of
established
precedent
was
going
to
be
a
disaster.
That’s
why
he
wrote
a
death-by-a-thousand-cuts
concurrence.
It’s
why
there
are
rampant
rumors
that
Roberts
tried
to
convince
a
fellow
conservative
to
sign
onto
his
decision
and
what
fuels
the
speculation
that
someone
on
the
right
was
behind
the
leak
of
the
draft
Dobbs
decision.
Sam
Alito’s
majority
opinion
in
that
case
was
designed
to
be
a
flame-on
moment
to
display
the
power
of
the
Court’s
far-right
majority…
a
majority
which
was
totally
and
completely
*legitimately*
earned.
Except
not.
Because
while
for
many
people
overturning
Roe
v.
Wade
was
the
final
nail
in
Court’s
legitimacy
coffin,
something
was
rotten
in
Denmark
before
that.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
(@Kathryn1).