What do you think?
Rate this book
The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts
An incisive biography of the Supreme Court's enigmatic Chief Justice, taking us inside the momentous legal decisions of his tenure so far.
John Roberts was named to the Supreme Court in 2005 claiming he would act as a neutral umpire in deciding cases. His critics argue he has been anything but, pointing to his conservative victories on voting rights and campaign finance. Yet he broke from orthodoxy in his decision to preserve Obamacare. How are we to understand the motives of the most powerful judge in the land?
In The Chief , award-winning journalist Joan Biskupic contends that Roberts is torn between two, often divergent, to carry out a conservative agenda, and to protect the Court's image and his place in history. Biskupic shows how Roberts's dual commitments have fostered distrust among his colleagues, with major consequences for the law. Trenchant and authoritative, The Chief reveals the making of a justice and the drama on this nation's highest court.
John Roberts was named to the Supreme Court in 2005 claiming he would act as a neutral umpire in deciding cases. His critics argue he has been anything but, pointing to his conservative victories on voting rights and campaign finance. Yet he broke from orthodoxy in his decision to preserve Obamacare. How are we to understand the motives of the most powerful judge in the land?
In The Chief , award-winning journalist Joan Biskupic contends that Roberts is torn between two, often divergent, to carry out a conservative agenda, and to protect the Court's image and his place in history. Biskupic shows how Roberts's dual commitments have fostered distrust among his colleagues, with major consequences for the law. Trenchant and authoritative, The Chief reveals the making of a justice and the drama on this nation's highest court.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published March 26, 2019
179 people are currently reading
1030 people want to read
About the author
Joan Biskupic
12 books82 followersJOAN BISKUPIC has covered the Supreme Court since 1989. Previously the Supreme Court reporter for The Washington Post, she is the legal affairs correspondent for USA Today, a frequent panelist on PBS’s Washington Week, and the author of Sandra Day O’Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice. She lives in Washington, D.C., with her husband and daughter.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews
March 29, 2019
Joan Biskupic is a legal analyst who covers the Supreme Court. She has written biographies about Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Sonia Sotomayor.
The book is well written and researched. The author covers the highlights of the Burger Court and the Rehnquist Court. She compares their style of leadership to that of Roberts. Roberts clerked for Rehnquist. Biskupic writes as a reporter, stating facts and where appropriate she provides the various theories that were reported at the time. She provides no personal opinions and attempts to report in a neutral manner. There is lots of information about Justices on the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts’ Court. I have the impression there was more information about the Justices she had written biographies on in this book.
The author reviewed the Court pointing out that the Roberts’ Court has struck down many laws related to civil rights, business regulation, worker’s rights and safety, and anti-corruption laws regarding monies to political campaigns. I found the information about Mitch McConnell and his fight against the McCain-Feingold Act and his lawsuit McConnell v Federal Election Commission that was heard by the Supreme Court in 2003 most interesting. Biskupic reveals some slight changes in Roberts in that he is becoming more open to compromise in recent years. The author tells of his early life and how that upbringing (elite white only schools and community) has influenced his viewpoint. I found this book most interesting and have a bit better understanding of Roberts. Since the election of Abraham Lincoln (republican) there have only been four democrats appointed Chief Justices or what is called a liberal court. All other Courts were conservative with the current one the most conservative in history. The republicans (conservatives) recently have controlled the Court since 1953
I read this as an e-book downloaded from Amazon to my Kindle app on my iPad. The book is 437 pages.
The book is well written and researched. The author covers the highlights of the Burger Court and the Rehnquist Court. She compares their style of leadership to that of Roberts. Roberts clerked for Rehnquist. Biskupic writes as a reporter, stating facts and where appropriate she provides the various theories that were reported at the time. She provides no personal opinions and attempts to report in a neutral manner. There is lots of information about Justices on the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts’ Court. I have the impression there was more information about the Justices she had written biographies on in this book.
The author reviewed the Court pointing out that the Roberts’ Court has struck down many laws related to civil rights, business regulation, worker’s rights and safety, and anti-corruption laws regarding monies to political campaigns. I found the information about Mitch McConnell and his fight against the McCain-Feingold Act and his lawsuit McConnell v Federal Election Commission that was heard by the Supreme Court in 2003 most interesting. Biskupic reveals some slight changes in Roberts in that he is becoming more open to compromise in recent years. The author tells of his early life and how that upbringing (elite white only schools and community) has influenced his viewpoint. I found this book most interesting and have a bit better understanding of Roberts. Since the election of Abraham Lincoln (republican) there have only been four democrats appointed Chief Justices or what is called a liberal court. All other Courts were conservative with the current one the most conservative in history. The republicans (conservatives) recently have controlled the Court since 1953
I read this as an e-book downloaded from Amazon to my Kindle app on my iPad. The book is 437 pages.
May 16, 2019
Exploring one of the most powerful and influential branches of the U.S. Government, Joan Biskupic focuses her attention to the man at the pinnacle of the United States Supreme Court (USSC), Chief Justice John Roberts. In this telling biography, Biskupic explores the early years of Roberts’ life and how this helped shape him into the man who holds much power when it comes to interpreting legislative and executive policy for the United States. Biskupic begins her piece by exploring the formative years in the Roberts household, with John as its eldest child. His passion for learning saw him earn a spot at a prestigious Indiana boarding school, which would sharpen his academic wit while building on his Catholic beliefs. When Roberts was able to study at Harvard, he excelled at history, writing and studying late into the night, even when his coterie of friends were off causing trouble or meeting young women. Biskupic creates an image of Roberts as being highly focused on his studies and letting little else derail him. Roberts always had a passion for the law, finding himself on the conservative minority at a time when Vietnam was coming to an end and the country was trying to come to terms with Watergate. Still, Roberts held strong beliefs about government and its role in America, excelling at Harvard Law School and leaving his imprimatur before clerking for two influential jurists, one USSC Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It was here that Roberts learned the inner workings of the law and its interpretation at the country’s highest court. When he sought a position in the Reagan White House after the 1980 landslide victory, Roberts was able to find work and excel on the policy side, deflecting much of the liberal pushback that came his way. Biskupic credits Roberts work here with solidifying many of his strongly-held conservative views, though they were kept hidden from the public by confidential memos and some behind-the-scene work that is only now being revealed. Roberts honed his skills with appellate work for the Solicitor General’s office, a regular visitor to the USSC to make arguments in front of the justices. Always eager to be elevated to the bench, Roberts had his window of opportunity in 1992, though Senate Democrats stalled his nomination and the election of Bill Clinton nullified any chance that Roberts had of being a judge. However, this was not a time to give up, but to wait for a new (read: Republican) opportunity to have his legal mind influence federal policy. Biding his time, Roberts found appellate work with one of the prestigious law firms who did a great deal of work in the D.C. area, keeping his name on the lips of many in Republican circles.
Biskupic personalises Roberts by offering insight into his late marriage and the adoption of two children. A man of much passion for the law, he was not completely divorced from emotions and is seen to adore his family, who joined him on many of these latter journeys. Biskupic explores the reemergence of Roberts’ name as a potential jurist when George W. Bush won the presidential election in 2000. Pulling on his time in both the Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations, Roberts was able to receive a nomination to the US Court of Appeal, where he cut his teeth on ruling from the bench. However, he was not done yet, still striving for a chance to be one of ‘the Nine’. When a vacancy opened up on the USSC, Roberts was immediately on a shortlist, though nothing was certain. Biskupic explores in detail the banter with Roberts being considered for a Court appointment, including an interesting narrative that will pull the reader into the middle of the cutthroat nature of Court nomination and congressional vetting. When the opportunity for George W. Bush to put Roberts forward as Chief Justice, the ante was raised significantly. The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist left not only a hole on the Court, but the chance to shape its leadership for decades. While Roberts had only a short resume from his work on the bench, his time working for both Administrations left many Democrats wondering if he were not a serious gamble. With much of his written work product still deemed confidential, many senators could not garner the needed fodder in nomination hearings to get a thorough read of the man. Roberts, in return, deflected many of the questions and spun them, leaving vast questions when it was time to vote. Biskupic does a formidable job depicting this struggle and how Roberts overcame much of it to ensure he would sit on the Court as its Chief Justice.
Biskupic offers up some interesting analysis of policies and the approach Roberts took when he assumed the helm of the USSC. Shaping it in his own image, Roberts created a highly structured Court without coming across as outwardly dictatorial. He sought to create a Court whose decisions were based on law and not ideological leaning, a long-time criticism of Justices (based on the president who appointed them). Roberts teamed up with some of his key conservative allies and forged ahead, all but destroying the promise he made publicly. Biskupic examines some of the key cases that came to the Court and how Roberts (and other Justices) interpreted them. Established law was never safe with Roberts in the Chief’s seat, as the conservative Justices sought to use their majority to reinterpret election laws, race relations, and business values, with precedents forgotten as quickly as they could be cited. Of particular interest to the reader may be Biskupic’s analysis of the Court rulings regarding same-sex marriage, specifically how Roberts presented argument (both at oral argument and in written findings), during the latter portion of the book. Decisions on this matter that is coming to define the moderate and conservative ideologies in the 21st century show how Roberts may be leaning. Surely, since the two appointments made by Trump, Roberts finds himself firmly in the centre of the pack, right where he wants to be. This controlling factor, in Biskupic’s mind, ensures the Chief Justice has all the power to shape America as he sees fit for the foreseeable future, or at least until after 2020, should things right themselves and Notorious RBG can retire peacefully.
Joan Biskupic uses her long history covering Supreme Court cases and goings-on to shape this biography into something that will likely appeal to most readers, both those looking to explore the world of American jurisprudence and the group who wants to see how one man’s rise to a position of great power was influenced by the choices he made along the way. Biskupic does a masterful job of shepherding a great deal of information into a single book, relaying wonderful stories and anecdotes without losing the reader at any point. While the life of John Roberts is by no means done, he has done so much and experienced a great deal that his time in the centre chair of the USSC is one that comes with ideological, occupational, and personal baggage that shapes the sentiments he exudes. Biskupic offers a well-rounded exploration of the man, neither praising nor vilifying Roberts throughout the narrative. There is much to learn throughout this journey, though Biskupic assures the reader that there is so much more yet to be written. Has Roberts had an easy road to the USSC? Not by any means, but he has used all that he has done as stepping stones, something that Biskupic explores for the reader to see. With candid interviews, statements, legal excerpts from arguments and decisions, as well as some behind the scenes information not readily accessible to the public, Biskupic makes her arguments thorough and on point. Her background on cases and explanation of their progress helps any reader to put things into context as they try to tackle understanding the issues at hand. There is nothing like delving head first into a book about the law and its interpretation, creating new ideas and quelling those that portions of the population holds dear. Biskupic opens the discussion by highlighting some of those that were led by Roberts, sure that he will have more in the years to come, as the Court is shaped and reshaped extensively with each passing Court session.
Kudos, Madam Biskupic, for a stellar biography. I learned a great deal about the man at the helm of the US Supreme Court. There is more to say and I hope you will be around to share it with your readers, as you have done a masterful job up to this point.
This Book fulfils Topic #1: One Letter Off in the Equinox #7 Book Challenge. For this topic, it is interesting to see how removing one letter from CHIEF makes it CHEF, something that Roberts tends to be when mixing all the ideological spices together. Sometimes the end result is palatable, while on other occasions, it is a hot mess!
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
Biskupic personalises Roberts by offering insight into his late marriage and the adoption of two children. A man of much passion for the law, he was not completely divorced from emotions and is seen to adore his family, who joined him on many of these latter journeys. Biskupic explores the reemergence of Roberts’ name as a potential jurist when George W. Bush won the presidential election in 2000. Pulling on his time in both the Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations, Roberts was able to receive a nomination to the US Court of Appeal, where he cut his teeth on ruling from the bench. However, he was not done yet, still striving for a chance to be one of ‘the Nine’. When a vacancy opened up on the USSC, Roberts was immediately on a shortlist, though nothing was certain. Biskupic explores in detail the banter with Roberts being considered for a Court appointment, including an interesting narrative that will pull the reader into the middle of the cutthroat nature of Court nomination and congressional vetting. When the opportunity for George W. Bush to put Roberts forward as Chief Justice, the ante was raised significantly. The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist left not only a hole on the Court, but the chance to shape its leadership for decades. While Roberts had only a short resume from his work on the bench, his time working for both Administrations left many Democrats wondering if he were not a serious gamble. With much of his written work product still deemed confidential, many senators could not garner the needed fodder in nomination hearings to get a thorough read of the man. Roberts, in return, deflected many of the questions and spun them, leaving vast questions when it was time to vote. Biskupic does a formidable job depicting this struggle and how Roberts overcame much of it to ensure he would sit on the Court as its Chief Justice.
Biskupic offers up some interesting analysis of policies and the approach Roberts took when he assumed the helm of the USSC. Shaping it in his own image, Roberts created a highly structured Court without coming across as outwardly dictatorial. He sought to create a Court whose decisions were based on law and not ideological leaning, a long-time criticism of Justices (based on the president who appointed them). Roberts teamed up with some of his key conservative allies and forged ahead, all but destroying the promise he made publicly. Biskupic examines some of the key cases that came to the Court and how Roberts (and other Justices) interpreted them. Established law was never safe with Roberts in the Chief’s seat, as the conservative Justices sought to use their majority to reinterpret election laws, race relations, and business values, with precedents forgotten as quickly as they could be cited. Of particular interest to the reader may be Biskupic’s analysis of the Court rulings regarding same-sex marriage, specifically how Roberts presented argument (both at oral argument and in written findings), during the latter portion of the book. Decisions on this matter that is coming to define the moderate and conservative ideologies in the 21st century show how Roberts may be leaning. Surely, since the two appointments made by Trump, Roberts finds himself firmly in the centre of the pack, right where he wants to be. This controlling factor, in Biskupic’s mind, ensures the Chief Justice has all the power to shape America as he sees fit for the foreseeable future, or at least until after 2020, should things right themselves and Notorious RBG can retire peacefully.
Joan Biskupic uses her long history covering Supreme Court cases and goings-on to shape this biography into something that will likely appeal to most readers, both those looking to explore the world of American jurisprudence and the group who wants to see how one man’s rise to a position of great power was influenced by the choices he made along the way. Biskupic does a masterful job of shepherding a great deal of information into a single book, relaying wonderful stories and anecdotes without losing the reader at any point. While the life of John Roberts is by no means done, he has done so much and experienced a great deal that his time in the centre chair of the USSC is one that comes with ideological, occupational, and personal baggage that shapes the sentiments he exudes. Biskupic offers a well-rounded exploration of the man, neither praising nor vilifying Roberts throughout the narrative. There is much to learn throughout this journey, though Biskupic assures the reader that there is so much more yet to be written. Has Roberts had an easy road to the USSC? Not by any means, but he has used all that he has done as stepping stones, something that Biskupic explores for the reader to see. With candid interviews, statements, legal excerpts from arguments and decisions, as well as some behind the scenes information not readily accessible to the public, Biskupic makes her arguments thorough and on point. Her background on cases and explanation of their progress helps any reader to put things into context as they try to tackle understanding the issues at hand. There is nothing like delving head first into a book about the law and its interpretation, creating new ideas and quelling those that portions of the population holds dear. Biskupic opens the discussion by highlighting some of those that were led by Roberts, sure that he will have more in the years to come, as the Court is shaped and reshaped extensively with each passing Court session.
Kudos, Madam Biskupic, for a stellar biography. I learned a great deal about the man at the helm of the US Supreme Court. There is more to say and I hope you will be around to share it with your readers, as you have done a masterful job up to this point.
This Book fulfils Topic #1: One Letter Off in the Equinox #7 Book Challenge. For this topic, it is interesting to see how removing one letter from CHIEF makes it CHEF, something that Roberts tends to be when mixing all the ideological spices together. Sometimes the end result is palatable, while on other occasions, it is a hot mess!
Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
February 22, 2022
Biskupic’s biography The Chief attempts to offer a portrait of John Roberts, a largely unknown and unassuming figure who has been Chief Justice for quite a few years and is expected to continue for quite some time. To call it a biography might actually be a misnomer as the book offers no more than a quick biographical sketch of Roberts’ personal life and is focused mainly on the development of his judicial philosophy. Much of the book is spent on the cases that came before the High Court during Roberts’ term as Chief Justice, with a particular emphasis on only a few areas: affirmative action, redistricting, political fundraising, gay marriage, and, of course, Obamacare. Very little or no space is afforded to other cases including criminal procedure, First Amendment, or other issues. The discussion of these cases is presented with precedential history and in layman’s terms so that even non-lawyers can grasp the details (I imagine).
Biskupic, whose work for several decades has been as a journalist covering the High Court, takes the view that the Justices decide cases based on party affiliation and which side of the spectrum they sit on rather than taking each case fully neutrally and without preconception. Biskupic is clearly of a Liberal bent and her book is colored by her own philosophy, often picking obscure details of Roberts’ past to make her points. It seems that Biskupic views Roberts as a Conservative in Sheep’s clothing, pretending to be neutral and detached, and explains away Roberts’ vote-switching in the Obamacare cases as an effort to protect the institution of the High Court on a partisan-divided issue.
The book is at its best discussing complicated issues such as the election funding issues in the Citizens United case and the slew of cases addressing affirmative action and redistricting. It fumbles though in offering a nuanced understanding who John Roberts is as a person, seemingly only viewing his life and work through partisan lens.
Biskupic, whose work for several decades has been as a journalist covering the High Court, takes the view that the Justices decide cases based on party affiliation and which side of the spectrum they sit on rather than taking each case fully neutrally and without preconception. Biskupic is clearly of a Liberal bent and her book is colored by her own philosophy, often picking obscure details of Roberts’ past to make her points. It seems that Biskupic views Roberts as a Conservative in Sheep’s clothing, pretending to be neutral and detached, and explains away Roberts’ vote-switching in the Obamacare cases as an effort to protect the institution of the High Court on a partisan-divided issue.
The book is at its best discussing complicated issues such as the election funding issues in the Citizens United case and the slew of cases addressing affirmative action and redistricting. It fumbles though in offering a nuanced understanding who John Roberts is as a person, seemingly only viewing his life and work through partisan lens.
April 24, 2019
This is an excellent book on the Chief Justice. As a biography of John Roberts, it doesn’t get below the robes. No underwear. Nothing in his closet. After the obligatory uninteresting summary of his uninteresting life through college, and his maturation in the Reagan White House, the book settles in when he joins the court. From then on, you know almost nothing about his life, but almost everything about his work, and the machinations within the court. Author Joan Biskupic understands cases and political dynamic, and she makes it clear and concise. Unfortunately, in the tension between Roberts desire to have a non-political court, and his (and the majority) viewpoint, the clear winner is likely to be the conservative political viewpoint. Read it and weep.
February 12, 2021
The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts was a meticulously researched and well-written biography of Chief Justice John Roberts by Joan Biskupik, a CNN legal analyst and self-described "Supreme Court junkie." Ms. Biskupik shares that her late parents subscribed to every publication where she worked and subsequently saved copies of all of her stories giving Biskupic an attic clip file covering most of John Roberts's career when she began writing full-time about the Supreme Court in 1989 when John Roberts began giving his first arguments before the Supreme Court.
I have to say that I have looked at the career of the Chief Justice John Roberts since first being appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005 to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor but before his confirmation hearings began, Chief Justice Rehnquist died with Roberts then being nominated for Chief Justice. I always comforted myself that John Roberts was first of all a jurist, and that he would want his court to be on the right side of history. In reading this book, I realized that while that pull is there, John Roberts, Jr. is very much a staunch Conservative. While we all had hope when Chief Justice Roberts saved the ACA with his vote, there have been other votes as well. Biskupik does an excellent job in detailing the nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Alas, the book went to print before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the subsequent nomination of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It is a different court but I am still hopeful that justice will prevail and that the Roberts' Court finds its way to being responsive to the needs and issues of our country. And I still put hope in Lady Justice as a moral force in judicial systems with her blindfold, a beam balance, and a sword.
"Another critic was US Representative John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who as a young civil rights activist had been beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in the 1965 march to Selma. Lewis told the committee that Roberts had been 'on the wrong side of history' during his years in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. 'We cannot afford to elevate an individual to such a powerful, lifetime position, whose record demonstrates such a strong desire to reverse the hard-won civil rights gains that so many sacrificed so much to achieve."
"In a speech a few weeks after Kavanaugh's confirmation, the chief justice referred to the 'contentious events in Washington' and stressed judges' independence from the executive and legislative branches. A month later, after Trump derided a judge who had ruled against the administration as an 'Obama judge,' Roberts issued an unprecedented statement publicly rebuking Trump: 'We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.'"
I have to say that I have looked at the career of the Chief Justice John Roberts since first being appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005 to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor but before his confirmation hearings began, Chief Justice Rehnquist died with Roberts then being nominated for Chief Justice. I always comforted myself that John Roberts was first of all a jurist, and that he would want his court to be on the right side of history. In reading this book, I realized that while that pull is there, John Roberts, Jr. is very much a staunch Conservative. While we all had hope when Chief Justice Roberts saved the ACA with his vote, there have been other votes as well. Biskupik does an excellent job in detailing the nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Alas, the book went to print before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the subsequent nomination of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It is a different court but I am still hopeful that justice will prevail and that the Roberts' Court finds its way to being responsive to the needs and issues of our country. And I still put hope in Lady Justice as a moral force in judicial systems with her blindfold, a beam balance, and a sword.
"Another critic was US Representative John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who as a young civil rights activist had been beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in the 1965 march to Selma. Lewis told the committee that Roberts had been 'on the wrong side of history' during his years in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. 'We cannot afford to elevate an individual to such a powerful, lifetime position, whose record demonstrates such a strong desire to reverse the hard-won civil rights gains that so many sacrificed so much to achieve."
"In a speech a few weeks after Kavanaugh's confirmation, the chief justice referred to the 'contentious events in Washington' and stressed judges' independence from the executive and legislative branches. A month later, after Trump derided a judge who had ruled against the administration as an 'Obama judge,' Roberts issued an unprecedented statement publicly rebuking Trump: 'We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.'"
November 22, 2020
Very well written. I became interested in learning about Chief Justice Roberts after he surprised me by saving Obama care. It turns out so was reporter Joan Biskupic. She has written biographies of a couple of the other justices. In preparation for writing this book, Robert granted Biskupic some exclusive interview time. Roberts’ does make clear that he believes that biographies of the justices should not be written until they have retired from the bench.
If you are not an attorney, don’t worry because Biskupic stays away from using legal terms unless she explains. She also provides background information on the state of the law, the arguments posed by both sides in the appeal to the court, and both the decision and the dissenting opinions.
For the most part, Roberts is who you think he is serious prep school grad with a Harvard degree and lots of service to Republican administrations of the past. But he is also interested in having the public view the court as not a battleground between liberals and conservatives but rather as a place where justice is served by the differing sides finding compromise. The book was written before RBG’s death, so it will be interesting to see how he deals with a bench weighted toward the conservative view.
You also see a different side of him and his concern for the future in his commencement address at his son’s 9th grade graduation. It will be interesting to see what the future holds in the areas of Obama care, voting, affirmative action, immigration, campaign finance, and abortion cases. These are all areas of the law the court deals with in this biography.
If you are not an attorney, don’t worry because Biskupic stays away from using legal terms unless she explains. She also provides background information on the state of the law, the arguments posed by both sides in the appeal to the court, and both the decision and the dissenting opinions.
For the most part, Roberts is who you think he is serious prep school grad with a Harvard degree and lots of service to Republican administrations of the past. But he is also interested in having the public view the court as not a battleground between liberals and conservatives but rather as a place where justice is served by the differing sides finding compromise. The book was written before RBG’s death, so it will be interesting to see how he deals with a bench weighted toward the conservative view.
You also see a different side of him and his concern for the future in his commencement address at his son’s 9th grade graduation. It will be interesting to see what the future holds in the areas of Obama care, voting, affirmative action, immigration, campaign finance, and abortion cases. These are all areas of the law the court deals with in this biography.
May 16, 2019
Have not finished yet..reading..so far so great.
July 17, 2019
My rating would be 4.5 stars if I had the option. This book was a gift and one I would not have thought to read otherwise. I am very glad that it did come my way, however, as I have never focused on the Supreme Court justices to learn more about who they really are. I know basics of course – who is liberal, who is conservative, that many important modern-day decisions have broken down along party lines, that appointments are more contentious than ever, and that long-standing precedents are being overturned by the Roberts court. And, if far-right conservatives have their way, the Roe v. Wade ruling with also be overturned. Though my review here makes clear my feelings about politics and policy, Joan Biskupic is more even-handed in her writing - having said that, it is not difficult to guess that she leans toward the middle or left.
What I particularly like about this book is that Biskupic gives us a picture of the justices’ personalities, backgrounds, how they rose to their positions, and the “turbulent times” behind the scenes of major, influential rulings of our day. Particularly, we get a feeling for who the famously reserved John Roberts is and what has motivated him over the years. I was surprised to learn that Roberts is now one of the more “moderate” of the conservative justices.
This is Biskupic’s fourth book about Supreme Court justices. As a lawyer and CNN legal analyst, as well as a Pulitzer Prize finalist, she is eminently qualified to bring this portrait to us. She has written the account clearly enough so this legalese-avoidant reader can enjoy it!
The Chief emphatically illustrates that Roberts takes inflexible stands on some issues, particularly regarding race. Affirmative action and voting rights are areas where he does not yield any ground. His decisions, regarding gerrymandering are alarming in this extremely politically divisive age. They appear, to me, to be motivated in many cases by “justifying” a given outcome, rather than taking a cold, hard look at Constitutional law. Whatever your political philosophy, I would say that carving up a state to guarantee outcomes by “packing and cracking” (well explained in Biskupic’s book) is not in the county’s long-term, nor democratic interests.
So, what did I find to admire about Roberts? – his intellect, his work ethic, his desire to preside over a Court that appears to be based on rule of law rather than politics (he has some work to do here), and his willingness to be flexible on occasion, notably as with his surprising ruling on Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, as the product of a very privileged background, he does not seem to have ever stepped outside that world to consider the obstacles faced by those less fortunate than he, though historically, many of the other justices have done so.
Read this book if you want a clearer understanding of how the current SCOTUS is making its decisions and affecting our lives. I thank Biskupic for writing this book which makes me feel more enlightened when I read the news and hear about yet another 5-4 ruling from the SC.
What I particularly like about this book is that Biskupic gives us a picture of the justices’ personalities, backgrounds, how they rose to their positions, and the “turbulent times” behind the scenes of major, influential rulings of our day. Particularly, we get a feeling for who the famously reserved John Roberts is and what has motivated him over the years. I was surprised to learn that Roberts is now one of the more “moderate” of the conservative justices.
This is Biskupic’s fourth book about Supreme Court justices. As a lawyer and CNN legal analyst, as well as a Pulitzer Prize finalist, she is eminently qualified to bring this portrait to us. She has written the account clearly enough so this legalese-avoidant reader can enjoy it!
The Chief emphatically illustrates that Roberts takes inflexible stands on some issues, particularly regarding race. Affirmative action and voting rights are areas where he does not yield any ground. His decisions, regarding gerrymandering are alarming in this extremely politically divisive age. They appear, to me, to be motivated in many cases by “justifying” a given outcome, rather than taking a cold, hard look at Constitutional law. Whatever your political philosophy, I would say that carving up a state to guarantee outcomes by “packing and cracking” (well explained in Biskupic’s book) is not in the county’s long-term, nor democratic interests.
So, what did I find to admire about Roberts? – his intellect, his work ethic, his desire to preside over a Court that appears to be based on rule of law rather than politics (he has some work to do here), and his willingness to be flexible on occasion, notably as with his surprising ruling on Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, as the product of a very privileged background, he does not seem to have ever stepped outside that world to consider the obstacles faced by those less fortunate than he, though historically, many of the other justices have done so.
Read this book if you want a clearer understanding of how the current SCOTUS is making its decisions and affecting our lives. I thank Biskupic for writing this book which makes me feel more enlightened when I read the news and hear about yet another 5-4 ruling from the SC.
April 14, 2019
The biography, at best, is a compilation of knowledge gleaned from mostly widely reported news stories or interviews with former colleagues that doesn’t deliver much insight. Another example that any biography is worth waiting to write when more rich resources are available. Information on CJ Roberts’ early life is relatively scant and narrow; his time in the Justice Department is left to unremarkable chapters; and the chapters regarding his time as Chief Justice leaves much to be desired (for instance, no discussion on what many see as judicial minimalism from Roberts).
Moreover, some of the history is just bad. The one example I’ll give is Owen Roberts’ supposed switch in time that saved nine. Alleged in the book, consistent with the lazy conventional view, is that Owen Roberts switched his view of the permissibility of certain government actions in response to political pressure from FDR (his court packing scheme). Based upon the best evidence available, Roberts ‘changed’ his mind (in the first conference vote after oral argument) three months prior to FDR’s announcement. Post hoc, ergo proper hoc indeed.
Moreover, some of the history is just bad. The one example I’ll give is Owen Roberts’ supposed switch in time that saved nine. Alleged in the book, consistent with the lazy conventional view, is that Owen Roberts switched his view of the permissibility of certain government actions in response to political pressure from FDR (his court packing scheme). Based upon the best evidence available, Roberts ‘changed’ his mind (in the first conference vote after oral argument) three months prior to FDR’s announcement. Post hoc, ergo proper hoc indeed.
August 18, 2020
Finished at 3:00 am. It's another top-notch piece of work by Joan Biskupic, but it left me feeling disturbed and depressed. I have to think about it.
January 27, 2026
Review of The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of John Roberts
Joan Biskupic is a longtime reporter covering the Supreme Court and is a SCOTUS analyst for CNN. She wrote this biography of the current Chief Justice back in 2019. It is well-researched and well written, but it feels like Biskupic clearly disapproves of Roberts’s jurisprudence and philosophical outlook, even as she praises his personal life on many occasions. Biskupic attempts to let Roberts speak for himself, but then almost seems to rebut him when she disagrees with a ruling or viewpoint. She is also mildly critical of his leadership of Chief Justice, suggesting that Chief Justice Roberts is more concerned with appearances than actual comity and sincerely coming to the proper decision. This critical tone limits how good this biography could truly be, but the research is so good and informative that the book is still a good read despite its limitations. Rating: 4/5
Joan Biskupic is a longtime reporter covering the Supreme Court and is a SCOTUS analyst for CNN. She wrote this biography of the current Chief Justice back in 2019. It is well-researched and well written, but it feels like Biskupic clearly disapproves of Roberts’s jurisprudence and philosophical outlook, even as she praises his personal life on many occasions. Biskupic attempts to let Roberts speak for himself, but then almost seems to rebut him when she disagrees with a ruling or viewpoint. She is also mildly critical of his leadership of Chief Justice, suggesting that Chief Justice Roberts is more concerned with appearances than actual comity and sincerely coming to the proper decision. This critical tone limits how good this biography could truly be, but the research is so good and informative that the book is still a good read despite its limitations. Rating: 4/5
July 22, 2020
Oh, my! Toward the end of this book, Joan Biskupic -- who usually does a very excellent job of writing about the Supreme Court -- acknowledges that she embarked on a bit of a gamble by completing this book in late 2018. At that point, as she observed, John Roberts was only partway through his tenure as chief justice. So his enduring standing as a Chief Justice was not totally established yet, she acknowledges.
All the same, she let her draft go to press, leaving it up to posterity to see if she got it right.
Ouch! Double-ouch!! A wealth of good reporting and careful case-by-case analysis is undermined by what amounts to betting on red when the ball was about to come up black.
To wit, she makes a relentless argument that Roberts, despite his outward civility, is ultimately a hard-line conservative shaped by his early years as a staff attorney in the Reagan administration. Her politics lean (gently) left, and especially on civil rights and affirmative action, he's just not her kind of justice.
She goes on to suggest that Roberts doesn't fully have the support of the other justices, and has been struggling to build consensus or at least a functioning collegiality among people who don't always agree.
But since this book went to press, we've had a series of decisions where Roberts -- and the Roberts court has taken clear stands that defy her model.
The court had a nice, 9-0 decision on the Electoral College, shutting down the idea that electors can ignore the popular vote. Roberts tapped Justice Kagan to write the court's opinion, and it was a comprehensive winner.
The court took a Louisiana abortion-access case and reaffirmed a very similar pro-abortion ruling from a few years ago, 5-4, with Roberts joining the majority on the carefully argued stance that even if he personally might see the issue a little differently, the court's stature required it not to flip-flop on established issues just because a judge or two changes.
The court also ruled in favor of the DACA/Dreamers immigrant children program, 5-4 with -- wouldn't you know it -- Roberts joining the four liberal justices to thwart a major anti-immigrant initiative by Team Trump, and writing the opinion himself.
Also of note, the court ruled 6-3 that gay people can't be fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation. This time -- yes indeed! -- Roberts again joined the four liberal justices, bringing along part-time conservative Gorsuch, with Justice Gorsuch writing the opinion.
I could cite more, but that's enough to make the point. The John Roberts of the 2019-2020 term is a much different man than Joan Biscupik thought she had defined in her book. Yes, he's conservative at times, but he's also got a moderate streak that's much too big to ignore.
And, if you're interested in process, he's either become a whole lot better at conducting his nine-member orchestra to make cohesive music, or he was never quite as inept as the book portrayed him.
It's a pity this book came up short, because Joan Biscupik's earlier work has been quite brilliant. Her biography of Justice Scalia is a gem. Her attentiveness to people's personal stories is both thorough and dignified. And she summarizes the key issues of court cases -- plus the back and forth of legal arguments -- with exquisite clarity.
I hope she does a revised edition of this book in a couple years. The building blocks are all here. With an earnest, honest rewrite of some errant sections, she could produce a Roberts bio that would have the full stature of her earlier Supreme Court biographies.
All the same, she let her draft go to press, leaving it up to posterity to see if she got it right.
Ouch! Double-ouch!! A wealth of good reporting and careful case-by-case analysis is undermined by what amounts to betting on red when the ball was about to come up black.
To wit, she makes a relentless argument that Roberts, despite his outward civility, is ultimately a hard-line conservative shaped by his early years as a staff attorney in the Reagan administration. Her politics lean (gently) left, and especially on civil rights and affirmative action, he's just not her kind of justice.
She goes on to suggest that Roberts doesn't fully have the support of the other justices, and has been struggling to build consensus or at least a functioning collegiality among people who don't always agree.
But since this book went to press, we've had a series of decisions where Roberts -- and the Roberts court has taken clear stands that defy her model.
The court had a nice, 9-0 decision on the Electoral College, shutting down the idea that electors can ignore the popular vote. Roberts tapped Justice Kagan to write the court's opinion, and it was a comprehensive winner.
The court took a Louisiana abortion-access case and reaffirmed a very similar pro-abortion ruling from a few years ago, 5-4, with Roberts joining the majority on the carefully argued stance that even if he personally might see the issue a little differently, the court's stature required it not to flip-flop on established issues just because a judge or two changes.
The court also ruled in favor of the DACA/Dreamers immigrant children program, 5-4 with -- wouldn't you know it -- Roberts joining the four liberal justices to thwart a major anti-immigrant initiative by Team Trump, and writing the opinion himself.
Also of note, the court ruled 6-3 that gay people can't be fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation. This time -- yes indeed! -- Roberts again joined the four liberal justices, bringing along part-time conservative Gorsuch, with Justice Gorsuch writing the opinion.
I could cite more, but that's enough to make the point. The John Roberts of the 2019-2020 term is a much different man than Joan Biscupik thought she had defined in her book. Yes, he's conservative at times, but he's also got a moderate streak that's much too big to ignore.
And, if you're interested in process, he's either become a whole lot better at conducting his nine-member orchestra to make cohesive music, or he was never quite as inept as the book portrayed him.
It's a pity this book came up short, because Joan Biscupik's earlier work has been quite brilliant. Her biography of Justice Scalia is a gem. Her attentiveness to people's personal stories is both thorough and dignified. And she summarizes the key issues of court cases -- plus the back and forth of legal arguments -- with exquisite clarity.
I hope she does a revised edition of this book in a couple years. The building blocks are all here. With an earnest, honest rewrite of some errant sections, she could produce a Roberts bio that would have the full stature of her earlier Supreme Court biographies.
July 30, 2020
I picked this book up because of what I've seen in the news lately about Supreme Court rulings. Like most Americans, my knowledge of the Supreme Court is very limited to its general role in our government. When I was done with this book, I was immensely glad that I had taken the chance to read it.
So, first off, this book is superbly written. Joan Biskupic penned an intimate and detailed book on one of the most enigmatic justices I have ever seen in the news. Unlike Clarence Thomas, RBG, or Kavanaugh, Roberts appears to be less a man and more an institution, which makes this book so crucial if you want to know more about our Chief Justice. Her book covers Roberts from his childhood days, thru the years in the Reagan Administration, and his last 15 years or so in the Supreme Court. The analysis in this book is very mild, and by that I mean she did not want to come across as very partisan... very Roberts-like, if I do say so myself.
As for the subject himself, the Chief Justice. I came away with a lesser opinion of him. Joan Biskupic mentioned that Roberts is very image conscious and doesn't want to be considered as the Taney of our times. But I don't know if that's working necessarily. His rulings have decimated Voting Rights, affirmative action, anti-discrimination, and other protections put in place to ensure all Americans are given a fair shake at life. Roberts have worked tirelessly to undo decades of protection. That said, his rulings in the last 18 months have also suggested that there may be a softening of some of his stance, though that remains to be seen. My personal analysis of John Roberts is that he rules according to his principles, however odious they may be, when he's in the majority with his conservative appointees. His frequent delegation of controversial opinions to Justice Alito is a prime example of a man looking for someone to be the "bad guy" in bad rulings. But when he is the swing vote, he takes extra care to come across as a man above petty politics. Yet, it is clear, based on Joan Biskupic's writings, that Roberts is most definitely not a man above politics. In the end, John Roberts comes across as very disingenuous, and for better or worse, now has the power to remake America by the virtue of his seat on the Supreme Court.
All in all, this is a fantastic read, and I would recommend this book to anyone who's looking for a great biography or just to know more about some of the inner workings of the Supreme Court.
So, first off, this book is superbly written. Joan Biskupic penned an intimate and detailed book on one of the most enigmatic justices I have ever seen in the news. Unlike Clarence Thomas, RBG, or Kavanaugh, Roberts appears to be less a man and more an institution, which makes this book so crucial if you want to know more about our Chief Justice. Her book covers Roberts from his childhood days, thru the years in the Reagan Administration, and his last 15 years or so in the Supreme Court. The analysis in this book is very mild, and by that I mean she did not want to come across as very partisan... very Roberts-like, if I do say so myself.
As for the subject himself, the Chief Justice. I came away with a lesser opinion of him. Joan Biskupic mentioned that Roberts is very image conscious and doesn't want to be considered as the Taney of our times. But I don't know if that's working necessarily. His rulings have decimated Voting Rights, affirmative action, anti-discrimination, and other protections put in place to ensure all Americans are given a fair shake at life. Roberts have worked tirelessly to undo decades of protection. That said, his rulings in the last 18 months have also suggested that there may be a softening of some of his stance, though that remains to be seen. My personal analysis of John Roberts is that he rules according to his principles, however odious they may be, when he's in the majority with his conservative appointees. His frequent delegation of controversial opinions to Justice Alito is a prime example of a man looking for someone to be the "bad guy" in bad rulings. But when he is the swing vote, he takes extra care to come across as a man above petty politics. Yet, it is clear, based on Joan Biskupic's writings, that Roberts is most definitely not a man above politics. In the end, John Roberts comes across as very disingenuous, and for better or worse, now has the power to remake America by the virtue of his seat on the Supreme Court.
All in all, this is a fantastic read, and I would recommend this book to anyone who's looking for a great biography or just to know more about some of the inner workings of the Supreme Court.
May 2, 2019
I always enjoy reading books about Supreme Court Justices on both sides of the aisle and this one was excellent. It was interesting to read about the various views of affirmative action. Justice Sonja Sotomayor benefitted from affirmative action a great deal and sincerely believes it is still needed. Justice Clarence Thomas also benefitted from affirmative action but believes its time has passed. Thomas also sincerely believes that it leaves a stain on the person who benefits from it because people believe that those who benefitted did not achieve (admissions to selective college for example) on their merit but were held to a lower standard because of their skin color. According to Thomas, they are always seen as "less than" by those who did not benefit from affirmative action. Chief Justice Roberts has repeatedly said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” It will be interesting to see how the court rules in the case of the Asian students who are suing Harvard University for discrimination based on race. (I’m betting 5-4 in favor of the Asian students. We shall see.)
Learning about the behind the scenes negotiations regarding Obamacare was particularly interesting. Chief Justice Roberts was torn between supporting an individual mandate which he felt was forcing “commerce” against a person’s will not “regulating commerce” as described in the Constitution. Justice Ginsburg was in the process of writing a scathing rebuttal to what was expected to be a 5-4 decision against the individual mandate penalty (tax) when Chief Justice Roberts flipped his vote. Chief Justice Roberts is often torn between his desire to interpret the constitution the way he genuinely sees it, and the desire to maintain the esteem of the Supreme Court with the public and prevent it from appearing political. It’s a very tricky line to walk.
My one criticism of the book is that the author’s political bias against Roberts and the other conservative leaning justices was apparent in many instances. Her bias was subtle and not at all overt, but it was there nevertheless. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys reading about Supreme Court Justices and their decision making.
Learning about the behind the scenes negotiations regarding Obamacare was particularly interesting. Chief Justice Roberts was torn between supporting an individual mandate which he felt was forcing “commerce” against a person’s will not “regulating commerce” as described in the Constitution. Justice Ginsburg was in the process of writing a scathing rebuttal to what was expected to be a 5-4 decision against the individual mandate penalty (tax) when Chief Justice Roberts flipped his vote. Chief Justice Roberts is often torn between his desire to interpret the constitution the way he genuinely sees it, and the desire to maintain the esteem of the Supreme Court with the public and prevent it from appearing political. It’s a very tricky line to walk.
My one criticism of the book is that the author’s political bias against Roberts and the other conservative leaning justices was apparent in many instances. Her bias was subtle and not at all overt, but it was there nevertheless. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys reading about Supreme Court Justices and their decision making.
July 1, 2019
My actual rating is more around 4.5 stars. The book was fascinating. It helped me understand Roberts’ ideology more completely. My only problems with the book were that I felt like she jumped very quickly between different terms which lessened the continuity of the narrative. I also wish there had been more detailed explanations on some of the other cases outside of the ACA, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United, Obergefell v. Hodges, and the affirmative action cases. That’s a problem others might not have, however, considering that I seem to find the Court more interesting than some do. Overall, the book was extremely interesting and informative. A great read considering the importance the Court and the Chief Justice have in our lives.
May 26, 2019
Very interesting and well written book about the life and times of Chief Justice John Roberts. The book goes into the details of many of the critical cases brought before the Supreme Court during Roberts' tenure as Chief Justice, as well as before he was named to the court. It is fascinating to read about these cases, how the various justices view the cases, how they interact with each other, and how they reach their conclusions and how they rule on each case. John Roberts certainly leans to the right in his political philosophy, but his main goal seems to be to try as hard as possible to avoid the Supreme Court from appearing political in its decisions. That is very hard to do, and I think at times, such as with his decision on Obamacare, he actually made a political decision in an attempt to prevent the court from appearing to be partisan. Perhaps that decision was for the best in the long term. I think the author, for the most part, did a good job of being fair in her writing, even though her political bias was definitely against the right leaning judges. If you enjoy the history of the Supreme Court, you will enjoy this book.
May 11, 2019
I am not a fan of Chief Justice Roberts having been appalled by his routine disregard, in divergence from his Senate confirmation hearing testimony, for stare decisis in general and his rulings on race, abortion, and religion in particular. Several of his rulings have proven to have had decided negative impacts on American democracy (Citizens United, Shelby County, Masterpiece Cake Shop among the more notable) yet Roberts continues firm in his opinions nonetheless. I find that despite his Senate testimony to be an unbiased umpire instead of a partisan player in interpreting the law, Roberts' has moved smoothly from his privileged upbringing through his service for his political ideology team into the seat of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and instead of calling them fairly, he calls them in accordance with his former teammates almost without exception. However, with the retirement of Justice Kennedy, I wanted to learn more about Roberts as he is now the home plate umpire and 'crew chief' on the Supreme Court. In reading this excellent account of his life and times on the Court, I find nothing to assure me that CJ Roberts' will morph into anything close to an unbiased umpire and that he will continue, if not intensify, his established practice of making rulings according to his personal political beliefs ignoring well-settled law and that he will continue to skew his strike zone to afford him freedom to call them in favor of his 'former' team. Roberts' once asked in a dissenting opinion "who do we think we are?" After reading this well-written biography I have a pretty clear picture of who you are, CJ Roberts, and I do not like what I see. Not even a little bit.
July 7, 2019
Well written and well researched, Ms. Biskupic's biography provides valuable insight into the early years, education and foundations of the conservative values which formed the Chief Justice. This reader was impressed by the intensity, tenacity and commitment which the Judge has always brought to his work. He is one seriously focused individual. One of the takeaways from this read was how deeply the Chief Justice cares about the institution over which he presides including it's public perception and its role and place in history. There is a sense that he absolutely abhors the politicization of the Court and this reader (whose political views lie just left of center) took some solace from this.
January 16, 2021
Justice Roberts is VERY private and I kind of like that in a world where very few things are private anymore. The book details his career and it is comprehensive in that area. The author provides the cases, the rulings, and opinions and lets the reader develop an opinion if they feel they can glean something from the compilation. Not a bad way to write a book about an introvert. The interesting part of the book were the cases. I did think that the closest I came to getting a glimpse of the private man was the speech that he wrote for his son's 9th grade commencement. It was powerful and insightful. If my dad had given a speech like that, I maybe couldn't appreciate it until I was older, but each year that I matured, I would love my father more for having done something like that. It was the remarkable takeaway I had from this big book of law cases.
January 16, 2022
Joan Biskupic has followed the Supreme Court for decades, so the book is full of interesting stories and useful information. The book is well-structured and accessible to the average reader as well. Unfortunately, the book is tainted by Biskupic’s obvious personal bias. Certain sections of the book contain claims and accusations that signal blatant partiality against Roberts and other conservatives on the bench. The book presents as a neutral, objective account, but constant contradictions make it at times, a very frustrating read.
November 7, 2022
Meticulously researched and fluidly written, Biskupic gives us a nuanced look at John Roberts. I found myself talking back to this book on nearly every page. Am I glad to know all of this? Not really. But does it help understand this Court? Yes. Unquestionably.
August 26, 2020
Fascinating look into the life and court of the current Chief Justice. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
February 18, 2024
Can’t tell you how much I hate it when journalists can’t hide their biases in books like these.
June 7, 2019
An informative, insightful portrait of the enigmatic Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Full review coming soon.
July 23, 2022
Mediocre book on a fascinating subject. Too much of the author’s perspective and a narrator (in the Audible version) who mispronounces legal terms. In spite of it all, I came away respecting Roberts more than before reading the book.
November 28, 2019
The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts
Written by Joan Biskupic
Reviewed by Jules Mermelstein, Esq.
Joan Biskupic’s biography of John Roberts is quite illuminating when analyzing the decisions he’s made as chief justice.
Roberts was raised mostly in an exclusive community. The book describes how this community was marketed.
An early promotional brochure described Long Beach as “America’s finest country home
community and playground.” Offering “20 reasons why better people live in Long Beach,” the
brochure referred to the glistening blue waters, the safe sandy beaches, and a fashionable golf
course. It also touted the “good moral character” of the residents, noting that “Long Beach is a
highly restricted home community. All residents are Caucasian Gentiles.”
Biskupic points out that, although Roberts joined the movement sparked by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to argue that judges should stay out of the social dilemmas arising in the country, and leave those decisions to the elected branches of government, Roberts has gone far beyond that. In his 2013 opinion in Shelby County v. Holder Roberts struck down a part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which had been reauthorized by Congress in 2006 by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House based on a 16,000 page record of facts they found. The law was based on Congress’ explicit authority from Section 2 of the 15th Amendment to protect the voting rights of blacks. Biskupic says that did not stop Roberts from striking it down, substituting his own legislative judgement with no record of facts that the only way to get past racial discrimination is to stop focussing on race.
Similarly, Biskupic points to his heavily Roman Catholic upbringing, including his attendance at an exclusive private Catholic school, as affecting his legal views on abortion and same-sex marriage. As the book points out, “(o)nce he became a justice, Roberts would vote to give the states significant leeway to restrict abortion; he never found that regulations had gone too far in burdening a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, including the regulations that led to the closing of clinics across Texas.” When he dissented in Obergefell he felt the court had no right to challenge the legal requirement of man-woman marriage asking rhetorically, “Who do we think we are?”
In discussing the recent history of the Court, Biskkupic points out that the court has shifted more to the right. It used to be that Justice O’Connor was the center of the court, sometimes siding with the perceived liberals and sometimes siding with the perceived conservatives. When she was replaced by Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy became the center of the court. When he was replaced by Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts now became the center of a very conservative majority court.
And yet, Biskupic points out, Roberts does not want to have his court, or federal judges in general to be perceived as partisan. He has publicly answered President Trump’s accusations of some judges being “Obama judges” by saying that “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
Biskupic hypothesizes that this non-partisan desire is probably why Roberts went out of his way to make sure that the ACA, also known as “Obamacare”, was not declared unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote of Republican-appointed justices over Democrat-appointed justices.
Biskupic summarizes the future of the Roberts Court as follows:
In some areas, likely not involving race or religion, Roberts may hold in check his usual
ideological instincts. He may find his way, as he did in 2012, to something resembling a middle
ground. Or Roberts might choose to retreat to the patterns seen in 2018, when he appeared
resistant to compromise. The man who is only the seventeenth chief justice of the United States is
likely still in the early chapters of his tenure. When Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018,
Roberts gained greater control, no longer yoked to a centrist conservative pulling to the left. . . ..
The chief justice is leading a Court increasingly in his own image. He is positioned at the center in
every way, and the law will likely be what he says it is.
The Chief is an excellent way to learn about the background, inclinations, and evolution of Chief Justice Roberts and help the reader understanding prior decisions while speculating about future ones.
Written by Joan Biskupic
Reviewed by Jules Mermelstein, Esq.
Joan Biskupic’s biography of John Roberts is quite illuminating when analyzing the decisions he’s made as chief justice.
Roberts was raised mostly in an exclusive community. The book describes how this community was marketed.
An early promotional brochure described Long Beach as “America’s finest country home
community and playground.” Offering “20 reasons why better people live in Long Beach,” the
brochure referred to the glistening blue waters, the safe sandy beaches, and a fashionable golf
course. It also touted the “good moral character” of the residents, noting that “Long Beach is a
highly restricted home community. All residents are Caucasian Gentiles.”
Biskupic points out that, although Roberts joined the movement sparked by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to argue that judges should stay out of the social dilemmas arising in the country, and leave those decisions to the elected branches of government, Roberts has gone far beyond that. In his 2013 opinion in Shelby County v. Holder Roberts struck down a part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which had been reauthorized by Congress in 2006 by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House based on a 16,000 page record of facts they found. The law was based on Congress’ explicit authority from Section 2 of the 15th Amendment to protect the voting rights of blacks. Biskupic says that did not stop Roberts from striking it down, substituting his own legislative judgement with no record of facts that the only way to get past racial discrimination is to stop focussing on race.
Similarly, Biskupic points to his heavily Roman Catholic upbringing, including his attendance at an exclusive private Catholic school, as affecting his legal views on abortion and same-sex marriage. As the book points out, “(o)nce he became a justice, Roberts would vote to give the states significant leeway to restrict abortion; he never found that regulations had gone too far in burdening a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, including the regulations that led to the closing of clinics across Texas.” When he dissented in Obergefell he felt the court had no right to challenge the legal requirement of man-woman marriage asking rhetorically, “Who do we think we are?”
In discussing the recent history of the Court, Biskkupic points out that the court has shifted more to the right. It used to be that Justice O’Connor was the center of the court, sometimes siding with the perceived liberals and sometimes siding with the perceived conservatives. When she was replaced by Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy became the center of the court. When he was replaced by Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts now became the center of a very conservative majority court.
And yet, Biskupic points out, Roberts does not want to have his court, or federal judges in general to be perceived as partisan. He has publicly answered President Trump’s accusations of some judges being “Obama judges” by saying that “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
Biskupic hypothesizes that this non-partisan desire is probably why Roberts went out of his way to make sure that the ACA, also known as “Obamacare”, was not declared unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote of Republican-appointed justices over Democrat-appointed justices.
Biskupic summarizes the future of the Roberts Court as follows:
In some areas, likely not involving race or religion, Roberts may hold in check his usual
ideological instincts. He may find his way, as he did in 2012, to something resembling a middle
ground. Or Roberts might choose to retreat to the patterns seen in 2018, when he appeared
resistant to compromise. The man who is only the seventeenth chief justice of the United States is
likely still in the early chapters of his tenure. When Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018,
Roberts gained greater control, no longer yoked to a centrist conservative pulling to the left. . . ..
The chief justice is leading a Court increasingly in his own image. He is positioned at the center in
every way, and the law will likely be what he says it is.
The Chief is an excellent way to learn about the background, inclinations, and evolution of Chief Justice Roberts and help the reader understanding prior decisions while speculating about future ones.
May 30, 2019
I didn’t finish which is unusual for me. I got tired of reading about the privileged life this man has always lead. And he’s supposed to look out for all of Us? Really?
May 4, 2019
"The Chief" offers a solid overview of Chief Justice John Roberts' career both on and off the bench. Readers desiring a deeper knowledge of the contemporary Supreme Court and serious analysis of its chief justice will find both here.
It's been said that the author is insufficiently critical of the subject. I found this criticism of the book to be lacking, as the author offered unflinching analysis of Roberts' decisions. My guess is that those desiring a searing takedown or political hyperbole were left disappointed. This is an analytical biography, not a political essay.
It's been said that the author is insufficiently critical of the subject. I found this criticism of the book to be lacking, as the author offered unflinching analysis of Roberts' decisions. My guess is that those desiring a searing takedown or political hyperbole were left disappointed. This is an analytical biography, not a political essay.
April 14, 2019
I was afraid that this was going to be a boring book full of legal jargon, discussions of legal cases I had little interest in and a dull biography. However I enjoyed the book. I feel the author was very knowledgeable both of the Supreme Court and the background of John Roberts. Roberts was a very ambitious lawyer and judge. His views are very conservative and are viewed suspiciously by those supporting civil rights, anti discrimination efforts and pro-choice supporters.
Roberts was able to "muscle" away opposition to his goal of getting a Supreme Court nomination. He appears to be a good family man. He married late and he and his wife adopted two children as they were not able to conceive kids.
Due to the very conservative makeup of the court, many hope that Roberts may be somewhat of a moderating influence. (He supported Obamacare in a legal decision). Not holding my breath that this will happen..
If one is interested in recent Supreme Court history and the influence of John Roberts, Biskupic has written a very interesting and readable book.
Roberts was able to "muscle" away opposition to his goal of getting a Supreme Court nomination. He appears to be a good family man. He married late and he and his wife adopted two children as they were not able to conceive kids.
Due to the very conservative makeup of the court, many hope that Roberts may be somewhat of a moderating influence. (He supported Obamacare in a legal decision). Not holding my breath that this will happen..
If one is interested in recent Supreme Court history and the influence of John Roberts, Biskupic has written a very interesting and readable book.
May 23, 2024
When Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, announced her retirement in 2005, the Bush Administration ultimately settled on John Roberts to replace her as an associate justice. During Roberts' interview with President Bush, the two men "clicked": both were conservative, hard-right Republicans who inherently understood what the other was about. And then two things happened in late August-early September of 2005. Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, and with civil order falling apart in New Orleans coupled with a glacially-slow reaction from the Bush Administration, Bush himself knew that he needed to make a strong showing somewhere. So when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died suddenly, Bush elevated Roberts to take Rehnquist's place and become the new chief justice, reasoning that, at age fifty, Roberts would be around to shape hard-line Republican policy on the Court for a very long time. And Roberts has done just that on cases dealing with abortion, affirmative action, voting rights, race, and school quotas, among others. Author Joan Biskupic has done a good job of showing how John Roberts' life has shaped him, from his early years at a sheltered Catholic boarding school in Northern Indiana, to Harvard and then Harvard Law, to his work in the Reagan and then H.W. Bush Administrations, to his time arguing before the Court as an appellate attorney. Here's an example of the writing: "After the decision in the case of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 was announced and the session had ended, Senator Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, declared that he regretted voting in favor of Roberts during his 2005 confirmation. Leahy compared Roberts's views to the Supreme Court majority's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which had upheld separate-but-equal laws maintaining segregation in 1896. Leahy asserted, in an interview with Politico, that Roberts had "made the court an arm of the Republican Party."" Author Biskupic certainly knows her stuff: besides this book, she has also written biographies on Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews