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.
In this case, John Roberts and company decided to issue the judgement immediately over the objection of the losing party. This move seemingly facilitates Louisiana’s effort to switch maps even after voting has already started.
Meanwhile, just 2-3 years ago, Roberts said that Alabama had to continue using illegal maps because we couldn’t disrupt an election cycle that was less than 6 months away. Just a few months ago, this court said that Texas can’t be forced to change maps 4 months before election.
The only real distinguishing principle that you could use to predict these decisions is which political party benefits from the decision.
Even if the VRA decision had some principled reasoning on the merits, all of this posturing on the timelines is clearly nakedly partisan.
All that, too, yeah.
though I’d state that the VRA had not only been good law, but settled as good law in the courts. Like, at this point, I wouldn’t be shocked if they decided the 13th amendment was something to be overturned.