By Matt Underwood In 20 years under John Roberts, a dramatic rightward turn for the US Supreme Court has become painfully clear. The evolution of the court, particularly under his leadership, has been marked by a significant shift in its ideological direction, a move that has dramatically altered the landscape of American jurisprudence and, arguably, the very fabric of the nation. This transformation, as observed over two decades, represents a departure from the court’s historical role as a neutral arbiter and has led to deep concerns about its impartiality and the potential for long-term damage to the principles of fairness and equal justice.
The concerns regarding the Roberts court’s trajectory were flagged early on. Back in 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama, during Roberts’ confirmation hearings, expressed reservations that have proven prescient. Obama correctly identified that in the critical, close-call cases, the judge’s personal values, core beliefs, and broader worldview, rather than strict adherence to precedent and legal rules, would often determine the outcome. He feared that Roberts, despite his assurances, would favor the powerful over the vulnerable, a concern that has resonated throughout his tenure.
The decisions of the Roberts Court, especially in recent years, have raised questions about the integrity of the institution. The court has been accused of having a lack of credibility, with issues such as justices accepting gifts that could be seen as bribes, and their wives’ involvement in financial arrangements. These are significant issues that undermine the public’s trust. The use of the shadow docket, decisions made without full public arguments or published reasoning, further fuels these concerns, creating a perception of opacity and potential bias. In addition, the court’s rulings appear, at times, to circumvent established legal principles, leading to outcomes that are difficult to reconcile with traditional conservative jurisprudence.
The shift to the right is not merely an ideological preference but also a strategic effort to reshape American society. The court has been accused of embracing authoritarianism, allowing for the erosion of democratic norms in favor of corporate interests. Landmark decisions, such as Citizens United, have opened the floodgates to unchecked political spending, empowering wealthy donors and corporations to influence elections and policy. This trend, coupled with rulings that limit voting rights and other protections, has intensified concerns about the court’s impact on the health of American democracy.
This rightward turn is especially concerning because of its long-lasting impact. The justices appointed by right-leaning presidents, whose decisions will shape the law for decades, are effectively building a legacy of conservative legal principles. The court’s actions have the potential to dismantle hard-won rights and protections. This is especially true in areas like civil rights, reproductive rights, and environmental protection, areas where the court has already made significant changes.
The roots of this shift can be traced back to a long-term strategy. The influence of wealthy individuals and organizations has been steadily growing, as they have been able to purchase support in Congress and the media. This trend has allowed these groups to shape the composition of the Supreme Court, ensuring that it aligns with their conservative ideological agenda. The end result is a court that is more likely to rule in favor of corporate interests and against the interests of the general public.
Ultimately, the impact of the Roberts Court will be judged by history. The court’s legacy will likely be defined by its decisions on critical issues and its role in shaping the future of American society. There are concerns that the court’s decisions have been undermining the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Whether the court can regain public trust and uphold the principles of justice and fairness remains to be seen.