Politicus USA has the article Chief Justice Roberts Admits Conservatives Believe Politicians Should Serve The Rich.
Although it appeared that all of the Court’s conservatives believe campaign finance laws and regulations have outlived their relevance in American politics, Roberts agreed with liberals that “States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians. Politicians are expected to be responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials. The same is not true of judges. In deciding cases, a judge is not to provide any special consideration to his campaign donors. Our precedents applying the First Amendment to political elections have little bearing on the issues here.”
No, I am afraid that Roberts does not understand the role of politicians and what we expect of them. He also misunderstands the “very concept of self-governance through elected officials.” The article does not specify exactly what Roberts fails to understand. So let me explain exactly what is wrong with what Roberts says. Politicians are expected to be responsive to the voters. That is why the election officials are supposed to count ballots, not campaign contributions to decide who wins an election.
Supporters and donors are important because they help you get votes, but it is the votes and voters who cast them that are supposed to have the final say. If you get the votes, but consistently fail to look out for the interests of the people who voted to make you win the election, then this is a failure of self-governance. This type of politician is not giving proper consideration to the selves that are supposed to be governing through the representation of the people that they elect.
With all the supposed advice and consent of the Senate, how do we select Supreme Court Justices that have so little understanding of what our Constitution says?