"The larger story of this term has been one of ethical rot and official indifference. … Whatever Chief Justice Roberts thinks of their behavior, it is plain that judicial independence on his court has come to mean judicial license: a freedom to do and say what a justice pleases."
Wendell Griffen on why he opposed George W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court: Roberts has consistently used his to advance intelligence and legal acumen "to advance interests and positions that maintained bigotry, discrimination, and disregard for unprivileged persons."
Wendell writes,
"Like Roger Taney did in 1857, John Roberts uses judicial power now to uphold bigotry, supremacy, and privilege."
"He did it in 2013 when he led the Supreme Court to invalidate the “preclearance” requirement of the Voting Rights Act of 1967 in Shelby County v. Holder. He did it again last June when he led the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case."
"The Students for Fair Admission decisions that Roberts announced to outlaw affirmative action admission programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina show that Obama and I were right when we opposed his confirmation.
John Roberts sides with and leads a cabal of bullies."
I had misunderstood what "Checks & Balances" meant in my civics education. Apparently it means that the balance is tipped in favor of whoever can write the biggest checks to legislators & justices.
"Chief Justice John Roberts got the chance to complete the Day of Jubilee he declared in Shelby County. The 14th Amendment is now magically and completely converted into a vehicle for white victimhood. Justice Clarence Thomas gets to take his twisted self-loathing out for another walk. And affirmative action is now as dead as Roger Taney because, you know, colorblind."
"By deciding Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the carefully manufactured conservative majority on the Supreme Court kept faith with conservatism's multi-decade alliance with the remnants of American apartheid. As Garrett Epps pointed out on the electric Twitter machine, when Roberts was just starting out, he tried to get Ronald Reagan to abolish affirmative action by executive order. Roberts has been in this for the long haul."
"It is not surprising that this court threw aside its own precedent along with an honest assessment of the realities of American society in 2023. After all, the decision’s author, Chief Justice John Roberts, also felt that most of the protections of the Voting Rights Act were no longer necessary. We can see how that worked out."
A divided Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action in college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.
"Roberts’ majority opinion preserving the status quo in Alabama voting rights act case must be seen in light of his killing of affirmative action in education in today’s Students for Fair Admissions Case. …
One cannot look at these two cases in isolation; there will be time to further weaken or kill Section 2 later on down the line should the “moderate” conservative Justices so desire."
"You knew it was going to be him, didn’t you? To write yet another Supreme Court decision basically saying, this whole race thing – we’re finished with it, and racism is over."
"He wrote the last decision saying the same thing, Shelby County v. Holder, when he declared, essentially, that racism was a thing of the past, so we don’t need the enforcement provision in Article Five of the Voting Rights Act because it is 'based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day,” and “our country has changed.'"
Bottom line: The majority and dissent differ fundamentally about the meaning of the #14thAmendment; the meaning of #race in the U.S.; and the importance of #precedent in constitutional decisions from the #SupremeCourt. Plus, Justice #Sotomayor absolutely eviscerates #ClarenceThomas concurrence. 1/ #LawFedi
The majority detaches the #14thA from its history, maintaining that it forbids almost all recognition of race in government or government-funded decisions. #JohnRoberts, for the majority, claims that there is no compelling interest in racially diverse student bodies in institutions of higher education. 3/ #FairvHarvard
In his opinion for the majority, #JohnRoberts maintains that #FairvHarvard does not overrule #GruttervBollinger, the relatively recent #SupremeCourt decision holding that race may be a consideration in higher education admissions. Roberts argues that Fair is merely implementing Grutter. Sotomayor is particularly good in her rebuttal, quoted in next post in this thread. 6/
The case concerned the “independent state legislature” theory. It is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”...
It is important to understand how the Judicial Conference handles investigations into Supreme Court justices’ financial disclosures because… 1/2 #lawFedi
I notice that John Roberts leads the investigating committee — the same John Roberts whose wife raked in more than $10 million from law firms with cases before the Supreme Court.
Of course, the Roberts court doesn't care about conflicts of interest because they ooze integrity.
Divided Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action in college admissions, says race can't be used (apnews.com)
A divided Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action in college admissions, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies.
Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections (www.nytimes.com)
The case concerned the “independent state legislature” theory. It is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”...