Judge John Roberts and his strategic assault on American's right to vote.

I’ve been nauseated by the political appointee John Robert since his appointment hearings revealed what a political activist he was. Then having watched worst fears materialize in the subsequent years and decades, has only increased my dislike.

Now, being assaulted with yet another reminder of what a monstrosity he’s been for a sane balanced American society, I figure it’s time to start a collection, cause looks like it’s going to be getting a lot worse, unless the sleepy heads out there wake up, get informed and get engaged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u803Fmd5uGc

 

How Shelby County v. Holder Broke America In the five years since the landmark decision, the Supreme Court has set the stage for a new era of white hegemony.

VANN R. NEWKIRK II, JULY 10, 2018

www. theatlantic. com/politics/archive/2018/07/how-shelby-county-broke-america/564707/

… Ignoring that deep racial disparities do still exist in every phase of voting, especially in the precincts formerly covered by the Voting Rights Act, Roberts’s legal analysis boils down to the fact that preclearance was very effective in reversing disenfranchisement, so the country no longer needs it.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out the apparent paradox of that reasoning, writing that “throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”


 

Roberts and the Voting Rights Act: The chief justice’s stealthy plan to destroy it. John Roberts’ stealthy plan to destroy the Voting Rights Act. BY EMILY BAZELON, JUNE 25, 2013

slate. com/news-and-politics/2013/06/roberts-and-the-voting-rights-act-the-chief-justices-stealthy-plan-to-destroy-it. html

Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion on the Voting Rights Act (#1) takes away one of the most important tools for ensuring minority rights that Congress has ever created. Yet the opinion sounds respectful and modest. This is the genius of John Roberts. He makes big steps to the right look like small ones. He is the master of conservative stealth, a chief justice who eschews flair and drama. In that sense, he’s the anti-Scalia—no flame throwing, thank you. Just getting the job done.

Eric, you’ve explained better than I can (#2) why Tuesday’s ruling, by the usual dreary 5–4 ideological split, is the opposite of judicial modesty—a term that generally means courts deferring to elected legislatures. The five conservatives struck down a law reauthorized by Congress just seven years ago because they don’t think the evidence for it was strong enough. Roberts reminds Congress: . . .

Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion on the Voting Rights Act

(#1) www. supremecourt. gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47. pdf

(#2) slate. com/news-and-politics/2013/06/supreme-court-on-the-voting-rights-act-chief-justice-john-roberts-struck-down-part-of-the-law-for-the-lamest-of-reasons. html


 

A 5-4 Supreme Court threatened voting rights. A 6-3 court could finish them off. It’s a strong enough majority to nullify voters’ voices, particularly voters of color.

By Ari Berman, September 24, 2020

www. washingtonpost. com/outlook/2020/09/24/trump-roberts-supreme-court-conservative-majority/

In 2013, the Supreme Court’s five-member conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act by ruling that states with a long history of racial discrimination in their conduct of elections no longer needed to clear changes to voting laws with the federal government, holding that “things have changed dramatically” since the act was passed in 1965.

To this, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday at 87, memorably dissented: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” she wrote. Her words were prescient. Doing away with pre-clearance allowed states such as Georgia and Texas to implement new restrictions on voting, such as stricter voter ID laws, closing polling places in precincts serving minority communities and adding new barriers to voter registration that disproportionately impacted voters of color.
That’s not the only way the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — who was appointed by President George W. Bush — has made it more difficult to vote in the past few years: . . .

 

Yeah, yeah, I can hardly wait to be reminded of a hero he was as foe to trump. So what? Is not being as bad as an absolute psycho case supposed erase everything else?

Get real, Roberts directly helped create the atmosphere that allowed a TRUMP to happen, in the first place.

So no brownie points for him despising trump the low life thug that he got for his efforts.

 

If you’re interested in learning about it, don’t trust my opinion:

A Right-Wing Rout: The Roberts Court's Partisan Opinions SHELDON WHITEHOUSE United States Senator from Rhode Island

 

April 24, 2019

In a new Issue Brief for ACS, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asserts that “Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have, with remarkable consistency, delivered rulings that advantage the big corporate and special interests that are, in turn, the political lifeblood of the Republican Party.”

Examining the Roberts Court’s output through OT 2017-2018, Senator Whitehouse catalogues 73 partisan majority opinions—joined by only the five conservative members of the Court, against liberal dissenters—in areas spanning voting and money in politics, protection of corporations from liability and regulation, civil rights, and advancing a far-right social agenda. His analysis concludes that in nearly 55 percent of these cases, the “Roberts Five” ignored precedent, congressional findings, and even their favored doctrines, such as originalism and textualism, to reach partisan and corporate-friendly outcomes. This pattern of outcomes speaks to a Roberts Court that, far from calling “balls and strikes,” appears intractably captured by powerful forces of special-interest influence.

You can read the full issue brief below or download this issue brief here.

A Right-Wing Rout: What the “Roberts Five” Decisions Tell Us About the Integrity of Today’s Supreme Court
Sheldon Whitehouse

We’re hearing it more and more: The Supreme Court is as divided as the rest of the city in which it sits. Veteran Court watchers have noticed it. As Norm Ornstein put it, the Supreme Court “is polarized along partisan lines in a way that parallels other political institutions and the rest of society, in a fashion we have never seen.”[1] Others, such as Linda Greenhouse and Jeffrey Toobin, have been more pointed—arguing that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has become a delivery system for Republican interests.[2] Public opinion polls seem to have picked something up, too. Recent polling by Gallup shows that only 37 percent of respondents have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court[3] and that, while Democrats’ approval of the Court has plummeted (to 40 percent), Republicans’ has more than doubled (to 65 percent).[4] These expert observations, and the shift in attitudes among the public, compel a hard look at the data to find out what the opinions of the Roberts Court show.

It turns out that Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have, with remarkable consistency, delivered rulings that advantage the big corporate and special interests that are, in turn, the political lifeblood of the Republican Party. Several of these decisions have been particularly flagrant and notorious: Citizens United v. FEC, Shelby County v. Holder, and Janus v. AFCME. But there are many. Under Chief Justice Roberts’ tenure through the end of October Term 2017-2018, Republican appointees have delivered partisan rulings not three or four times, not even a dozen or two dozen times, but 73 times. Seventy-three decisions favored Republican interests, with no Democratic appointee joining the majority. On the way to this judicial romp, the “Roberts Five” were stunningly cavalier with any doctrine, precedent, or congressional finding that got in their way.

I. Methodology
The conclusion that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has become an instrument of conservative and business interests and Republican donors is admittedly a harsh one. It is important, therefore, to understand how I reach it. . . .

II. Conservative Outcomes
A. Controlling the Political Process to Benefit Conservatives
Of the Roberts Court’s 73 partisan 5-4 cases, 13 put a thumb on the scale to favor Republicans at the ballot box, by facilitating the flood of dark and corporate money into the political process, by restricting the ability of citizens to vote or have their votes matter, or by working to undermine labor unions, a traditional base of Democratic support. . . .

III. A History and Future of Court Capture
There is a pattern in the Roberts Era: 73 partisan decisions, in which the majority was composed of only the five Republican-appointed justices, that handed a win to big conservative and corporate interests. Quite often, these same decisions override or ignore conservative judicial principles. . . .

Appendix
Roberts Five Decisions