By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Chief Justice Roberts’ year-end report uses images of civil rights-era judges, like J. Waties Waring, to deflect criticism of contemporary judicial decisions. This tactic, also employed by Judge Edith Jones, falsely equates modern judicial opponents to those who faced violent backlash for upholding civil rights. Sherrilyn Ifill argues this comparison is ahistorical and inaccurate, highlighting the stark difference between judges who risked their safety and standing to advance justice and those facing criticism today. This appropriation of civil rights history ignores the systemic racism faced by civil rights advocates and minimizes the severity of the modern critiques. The comparison is ultimately a misguided attempt to shield controversial rulings from legitimate scrutiny.
Read the original article here
John Roberts’s tenure as Chief Justice has been marked by decisions that actively undermine civil rights, not uphold them. His claim to be a champion of civil liberties is simply untenable when considering the consistent pattern of rulings that curtail voting rights, weaken worker protections, and empower corporations at the expense of individuals.
The dismantling of crucial provisions within the 1965 Voting Rights Act stands as a stark example. This decision effectively allows voter suppression tactics to flourish unchecked, impacting millions of citizens and directly contradicting the fundamental principle of equal access to the ballot box. It’s a far cry from protecting civil rights; it’s actively hindering them.
Similarly, Roberts’s rulings consistently favor corporations over individuals. His decisions have shielded banks from transparency regarding transaction fees, limited the ability of workers to collectively sue employers for violations of federal law, and even condoned unconscionable corporate fraud. These actions demonstrate a clear bias towards powerful entities, leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable and without recourse.
His vote to weaken unions’ ability to collect operating fees represents another blow to the rights of working people. By undermining the collective power of organized labor, Roberts has effectively weakened a vital force for social and economic justice. This is hardly the action of a civil rights hero.
The Supreme Court’s acceptance of extreme partisan gerrymandering is equally troubling. By sanctioning this practice, which deliberately manipulates electoral districts to favor one party, Roberts has legitimized a system that systematically disenfranchises voters and undermines the democratic process. This blatant disregard for fair representation directly contradicts the core principles of civil rights.
The infamous “money equals speech” doctrine, solidified under Roberts’s leadership, has flooded the political system with corporate influence, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. This ruling effectively renders political campaigns a battleground for the wealthiest, exacerbating existing inequalities and diminishing the democratic ideal of equal participation.
Even the court’s decisions on issues such as sex discrimination and the ability to sue for inadequate pay reveal a pattern of undermining individual rights. Roberts’s legacy is not one of protecting vulnerable populations but rather of empowering those already in positions of power.
Furthermore, the claim of Roberts being a neutral arbiter is shattered by the sheer volume of decisions consistently favoring conservative causes. The sheer number of instances where Roberts has sided against progressive social justice initiatives demonstrates a clear ideological bias, directly contradicting the notion of an impartial judge upholding civil rights.
It’s not just the decisions themselves; it’s the context in which they occur. The current Supreme Court has a reputation for partisan decision-making, a perception amplified by the highly politicized nature of the appointment process. The court’s increasingly skewed composition fuels suspicions of bias, a perception that is reinforced by the court’s actions. This perception actively undermines the legitimacy of the Court and damages its credibility.
This isn’t about personal attacks; it’s about a consistent pattern of judicial actions that demonstrably harm civil rights. Roberts’s legacy will not be one of a civil rights hero but rather one of a Chief Justice who presided over a period of significant erosion of fundamental liberties for many Americans. His actions speak far louder than any self-proclaimed title. His actions clearly contradict any narrative of protecting the rights of all Americans. He is not, and will never be, considered a civil rights hero.