The chief justice defends court’s impartiality after decisions on abortion, presidential immunity and voting rights

The chief justice defends court’s impartiality after decisions on abortion, presidential immunity and voting rights

US chief justice John Roberts has insisted supreme court judges are not “political actors” amid outrage over its recent decision undermining the Voting Right Act, and other moves that have benefited Donald Trump and his allies.

Roberts leads a court on which conservatives have held a six-justice majority since 2020, and handed down a series of decisions that have upended longstanding precedent and, in Trump’s second term, allowed many of his policies to take effect, at least temporarily.

Last week’s decision on the Voting Rights Act has greenlit a scramble by Republican-led states to enact new congressional maps that will break up districts drawn to elect Black lawmakers, who tend to be Democrats. That may amount to a major blow to the party’s long-term chances of controlling the US House of Representatives.

The court has also expanded use of a fast-track process known as the “shadow docket” to temporarily pause lower court rulings against the Trump administration, including his mass deportation policies and gutting of federal departments.

  • Asafum@lemmy.world
    68·
    3 days ago

    Texas gerrymandering case that would benefit Democrats in December: even though the map is unconstitutional we can’t change the map, it’s too close to an election.

    Louisiana gerrymandering case this month that would benefit Republicans: the map must change because it’s unconstitutional!

    John Roberts: We’Re NoT PoLiTiCaL!

    …

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      218·
      3 days ago

      It was the Louisiana governor who decided to act on it, it wasn’t mandated by the court.

      The court is still political, but in this case it wasn’t them.

      • ryper@lemmy.caEnglish
        35·
        3 days ago

        No, it’s still on them.

        The voters who initially challenged Louisiana’s map asked the justices last week to speed up the usual 32-day period between when a ruling is announced and when the Supreme Court clerk formally passes the decision down to a lower court. They wrote that “time is … of the essence” with this year’s elections approaching quickly, and said the issue needs to be returned to the district court so it can “oversee an orderly process” to fix Louisiana’s maps.

        On Monday, the high court granted that request, writing that the court’s typical 32-day wait period is “subject to adjustment” by the justices.

        The court broke with the normal timeline to let Louisiana hurry up and do its thing. When, again, December was too close to the election to do anything about Texas’s unconstitutional map.