Podcast Summary: Talking Feds

Episode: John Roberts: Umpire or Ultimate Decider?
Date: January 15, 2026
Host: Harry Litman
Guest: Lisa Graves, Executive Director of True North Research, former DOJ and Senate Judiciary Committee official, author of Without: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Harry Litman sits down with Lisa Graves to undertake a deep dive into the tenure and record of Chief Justice John Roberts. Using Graves' new book as a framework, they examine whether Roberts has lived up to his self-styled image as the “umpire” of the Supreme Court, or whether he has become the ultimate decider, steering the Court on a regressive, partisan trajectory. The discussion centers on how the Roberts Court has shaped American law, especially as it intersects with democracy, presidential power, ethics, the Federalist Society’s influence, and prospects for institutional reform.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

I. The “Umpire” Image & Reality of John Roberts

• Lisa Graves opens with the contrast between Roberts’ promise of impartiality and his actual record:
  • Roberts was pitched to both President George W. Bush and the American public as a neutral “umpire, just calling balls and strikes.”
  • In reality:
    • He has “not just been calling balls and strikes, he has been changing the rules of the game, particularly around our democracy, about money in politics, around maps, around voting in ways that are deeply regressive.” (Graves, 03:08)
    • Roberts’ decisions have often reversed longstanding precedents, moving law backward by decades or even “a century.”
    • The Court’s interventions, particularly the presidential immunity decision and a flurry of emergency orders, are “not normal, and people need to understand the origins of that.” (Graves, 04:42)

Notable Quote

“What we’ve seen is that he has not just been calling balls and strikes, he has been changing the rules of the game...”
—Lisa Graves (03:08)

II. Conservative Legal Movement & Vetting Supreme Court Picks

• Litman and Graves recount the conservative movement’s years-long effort to avoid “another David Souter”—a justice whose decisions did not align with conservative expectations:
  • “No more Souters” became a rallying cry to thoroughly vet nominees’ ideological credentials.
  • John Roberts was seen as a product of that movement, thoroughly trusted to “deliver on that agenda.” (Graves, 10:25)
• Roberts’ early legal background, shaped by Rehnquist and the Reagan DOJ, signified a desire to reverse liberal precedents, particularly on civil rights and voting.
  • Graves: Roberts “was a Reagan revolutionary, really was part of that reactionary movement.” (Graves, 12:21)

Memorable Story

“He wasn’t a baseball player in high school. He was a football player known for his strategy in tackling his opponents. He was a wrestler… contorting other people in order to win.”
—Lisa Graves (11:02)

III. Case Studies: Voting Rights and Presidential Power

• Shelby County v. Holder (2013): Roberts authored the opinion gutting Section 5 preclearance of the Voting Rights Act.

  • Graves: Roberts “supplant[ed] that with his judgment that we don’t need it anymore,” ignoring Congressional intent based on thousands of pages of findings. (Graves, 14:25)
  • Litman highlights the striking overreach for a supposed “umpire”:

    “It really seems to be a legislative type determination…” (15:13)

• Presidential Immunity Decision (2025):

  • Graves argues Roberts’ ruling in favor of Trump established unprecedented official immunity:

    “He almost pardoned Nixon’s ghost. The notion that a president, if he’s engaged in the official acts, can do no wrong forever backward and forever forward.” (13:24)

IV. Roberts’ Dual Image: Institutional Guardian vs. Ideological Actor

• Litman and Graves discuss whether Roberts is truly a conflicted figure (the “institutionalist” sometimes tempering the court) or fundamentally a partisan operative:
  • Litman: “Roberts one, who is the institutionalist… then there’s Roberts, too, who… will come through for the Republican Party.” (18:33)
  • Graves: “I think it’s definitely [the partisan], and the appearance of [the institutionalist], in essence, because I think that he’s gotten a lot of mileage by saying he’s an institutionalist...” (19:19)
  • Example: Inaction on Clarence Thomas’ ethics scandals and opposition to Congressional attempts to impose binding ethics rules.
  • “He’s someone who is definitely willing to change the law, to move the law in order to help his party, the party that appointed him.” (Graves, 21:06)

V. Supreme Court Appointments: Democrats vs. Republicans

• Graves notes Republicans systematically covered their bases with ideologically reliable nominees, while:
  • “Clinton came in, and the appointments were very moderate… big firm partners… prosecutors. They were mostly moderates and could get through the gauntlet...” (Graves, 24:28)
  • Democratic appointments rarely served as reliable left-wing equivalents to Republican picks.
  • Litman: “The capture of the judicial selection function by the extreme wing of the Republicans just wasn’t paralleled on the other side.” (25:20)

VI. The Federalist Society’s Generational Evolution

• The Federalist Society’s role is dissected:
  • The first wave focused on rolling back “judicial activism” of earlier liberal courts, shifting particularly post-Roe v. Wade.
  • Recent generations, according to Graves, have become more “theocratic,” seeking to impose religious views through law and embracing even more radical approaches.
  • Litman observes a divide: some early Federalist Society leaders have broken with Trumpism, whereas newer cohorts embrace it unabashedly for careerist or ideological reasons. (30:08 – 33:59)
  • Despite his more arm’s-length relation to the Society, Roberts’ jurisprudence aligns with its priorities, e.g., the unitary executive and dismantling the administrative state.

VII. Structural Reforms and the Roberts Court’s Future

• In closing, the conversation turns to potential Supreme Court reforms in light of the damage done to democracy and oversight:

  • Proposals discussed:
    • Binding Supreme Court ethics rules
    • Term limits (with reference to proposals by Steven Calabresi)
    • Jurisdiction stripping
    • Court expansion
  • Graves warns that without meaningful reform, the court’s march will continue:

    “This court will continue to damage our rights until we reform it, until we redress it and push back on it.” (36:24)

• Litman points out that the Roberts Court has repeatedly neutralized Congress’ attempts to check the Court’s excesses, both on voting rights and campaign finance.

• On the prospect that the Court might finally resist a further Trumpian slide into authoritarianism, Graves is not optimistic:

  • “Roberts has a real track record of defending expansive presidential power and deferring [to] presidential power, and he may have the votes to do so.” (37:55)
  • The current majority appears willing to “allow [the President] to not follow the law… which is no solution to me. Like, we're in a world of trouble.” (37:55 – 38:58)

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• On Roberts’ “umpire” image:

  “I just think it was constructed. And we know that he gave that analogy to George W. Bush when he interviewed with him… the thing he remembered about that interview was Robert saying he was going to be an umpire…”
  —Lisa Graves (06:00)

• On Federalist Society’s evolution:

  “Now we’re seeing even maybe a fifth generation difference…some of them are not just conservative in a certain sense…theocratic worldview… their religious views be the law of the land in ways that affect marriage equality and access to reproductive care.”
  —Lisa Graves (27:24)

• Lisa Graves on the future:

  “This court will continue to damage our rights until we reform it, until we redress it and push back on it.” (36:24)
  “We’re in a world of trouble. And that trouble…really unfortunately has been unleashed by the Roberts court and its view of presidential power.”
  —Lisa Graves (38:58)

Key Timestamps

• [03:08] Graves outlines the shift from “umpire” to activist, regressive court
• [10:25] Discussing the roots of the “no more Souters” approach and Roberts’ selection
• [14:25] Analysis of the Shelby County decision
• [18:33] Institutionalism vs. partisanship in Roberts’ decisions
• [24:28] How Democratic and Republican SCOTUS appointments differ
• [27:24] Federalist Society generations and culture war focus
• [36:24] Structural reform—ethics, term limits, and limits on the Roberts Court
• [37:55–38:58] The Court's possible role in the next turning point of American democracy

Concluding Takeaways

• The episode is a critical, in-depth look not just at Chief Justice Roberts, but at the conservative legal movement, the structure of the Supreme Court, and the danger of unchecked judicial power at a critical time for American democracy.
• Through Lisa Graves’ expertise and personal insights, listeners gain a nuanced picture of Roberts’ record and the stakes for law, governance, and rights in the United States.