Ask a Pol politics
Ask a Pol politics podcast
Sen. Welch: Roberts orchestrated "radical redirection" of SCOTUS
0:00
Current time: 0:00 / Total time: -4:06
-4:06

Sen. Welch: Roberts orchestrated "radical redirection" of SCOTUS

Sen. Peter Welch (9-18-2024)
Supreme Court as viewed from the 3rd floor of the Senate. Photo: Matt Laslo

Who?

Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT)

LISTEN: Laslo & Welch

0:00
-4:06

Ask a Pol asks:

What do you make of the recent New York Times article on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’s involvement in the Jan. 6 criminal cases?

Key Welch: 

“He's been the major force in the erosion of the credibility of the Court,” Sen. Peter Welch exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “You know, he's a skillful backroom operator, but he has played a major role in the radical redirection of the Court.”

Subscribe for FREE!!!

ICYMI — Laslo’s full reporting on the Roberts Court

This interview was first included in Matt Laslo’s Raw Story feature, “From moderate to manipulator: Behind the unmasking of Chief Justice John Roberts

Caught our ear per ‘court packing’ barbs from the right:

“We're not gonna get expansion. And there's a lot of downside to expansion: we expand, they expand and it politicizes it,” Welch told us. “The merit of an 18-year term is, first of all, that's a very substantial term, and they're insulated so they have the benefit of protection. And then number two, every president is gonna have an opportunity to appoint two members. So that means the American people get to weigh in indirectly by choosing the president.”

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT), slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Peter Welch

SCENE: Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo catches Sen. Welch as he exits an underground tram and heads to the US Capitol to vote on the Senate floor.

Matt Laslo: “No cap today?”

Peter Welch: “What?”

ML: “No cap today?”

The day before Laslo covered an IVF event on the Capitol steps where Welch wore a cap with his suit.

PW: “Well, I walked underneath. Forgot my hat, yeah.”

They go off mic briefly…

ML: “Did you see that New York Times piece on Justice Roberts?”

PW: “I did.”

ML: “What do you make of that?”

PW: “It said what we all know. I mean, he's been the major force in the erosion of the credibility of the Court. You know, he's a skillful backroom operator, but he has played a major role in the radical redirection of the Court.”

ML: “Yeah. Does this — like, seeing that…”

PW: “What?”

ML: “Seeing that article — because many of you [Democrats] kinda have looked at him as the backstop on certain cases…”

PW: “I didn't look at him like that.”

ML: “You didn't, no?”

PW: “Well, he did Citizens United.”

ML: “Yeah. Which upended everything?”

PW: “That was just a seminal wrong turn. You know, he's very skillful and, unfortunately, a driving force in, I think, the radical redirection of the Court.”

Share

ML: “Knowing that a lot of Republicans have kinda used the ethics code that he put out there, does this change that or was that never good enough?”

PW:Hey, Angus.”

Welch greets Sen. Angus King (I-ME).

PW: “You know, I'm not sure…

Welch greets — “Hey, Tina, how are you?” — Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN).

PW: “I'm not sure how — I'm not quite sure I understand your question. I mean, the Court has got an extreme and radical majority. It's lost public respect. It’s a Court that passed — that equated money with speech. It’s a Court that took away the woman’s constitutional right to make her own decisions. And he’s a major part of all of that.”

ML: “How does your party change that? Some, like, [Sen. Ed] Markey (D-MA)calls for expanding the size of the Court?”

PW: “We can’t. We can’t. I mean, you know, I'm for term limits and then you take the politics out of it. It will take time. But…”

ICYMI — Susan Collins defends Justice Roberts

ML: “Anything that’s gonna happen is gonna take time?”

PW: “We're not gonna get expansion. And there's a lot of downside to expansion: we expand, they expand and it politicizes it. What I think the merit of an 18-year term is, first of all, that's a very substantial term, and they're insulated so they have the benefit of protection. And then number two, every president is gonna have an opportunity to appoint two members. So that means the American people get to weigh in indirectly by choosing the president. So…”

ML: “So you think that would be a significant change?”

PW: “I do. No, I do. I think it would take probably some extreme politics out of the Court.”

ML: “Yeah, take it out the Court — thank you, sir — take some of the extreme politics out of the Court.”

Laslo repeats the last phrase of the interview to ensure it’s captured on his mic.

Leave a comment

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

Discussion about this podcast