By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Chief Justice John Roberts has expressed unease that the public perceives the Supreme Court as political, but this perception is bolstered by recent actions. The conservative supermajority’s decisions, such as weakening the Voting Rights Act, directly enable Republican state legislatures to erase Black political representation. This outcome, coupled with a history of Republican-appointed justices and ideologically vetted appointments, reveals the Court’s function as a tool for enacting an agenda unattainable through the ballot box. Despite Roberts’s attempts to frame the Court as an impartial arbiter, its partisan alignment and the public’s awareness of its political influence suggest a need for reform.
Read the original article here
The pronouncements from Chief Justice John Roberts, asserting that the Supreme Court is not a political institution, ring hollow when juxtaposed with the observable trajectory of its decisions and, indeed, with his own past. This declaration, while perhaps intended to shore up a fraying public trust, appears more as an attempt at self-serving revisionism than a reflection of reality. The evidence suggests a carefully orchestrated strategy, one that has been in motion for a considerable time, aiming to reshape the legal landscape in a manner that aligns with a particular ideological agenda, despite the Chief Justice’s claims of judicial neutrality.
There’s a persistent notion that Roberts, despite his public pronouncements, has always operated with a clear ideological compass. His history, including his work under figures like Ken Starr and William Rehnquist, suggests a deep-seated commitment to a conservative legal philosophy. This isn’t the kind of person who suddenly embraced partisanship; rather, it seems to be a consistent, if at times subtle, application of his worldview. The argument is that he has been a lifelong ideologue, and his confirmation process itself was met with questions about the extremity of his views.
The recent revelations, particularly those brought to light by The New York Times, have been instrumental in challenging the Court’s purported apolitical status. Internal memos from 2015 and 2016, attributed to Roberts himself, have surfaced, detailing a focus on intervening in energy legislation for the sake of economic impact, rather than solely on judicial precedent. This intervention, it is argued, was facilitated through the early abuse of “shadow dockets,” a practice that allows for rulings without the usual transparency, debate, and formal legal reasoning.
The core of the critique lies in the fundamental expectation of the judiciary: to interpret laws and apply precedent, not to legislate from the bench or act as a political body. The very nature of a secretive court, operating outside the direct scrutiny of the public, is seen by many as antithetical to the principles of a healthy democracy. The reliance on “shadow dockets,” in this view, further exacerbates the problem by enabling unaccountable decisions, divorced from rigorous legal scrutiny and public engagement.
Since 2016, the Court’s legitimacy has been increasingly questioned, and these reports have only amplified those doubts. The historical intervention in the Bush v. Gore federal election case is often cited as an early example of the Court stepping into a highly political arena, a move that, for some, signaled a departure from its intended role. The argument is that these weren’t isolated incidents but rather part of a pattern.
The decisions on partisan gerrymandering, such as the Abbott ruling, are pointed to as further evidence of a pre-planned ideological agenda. The assertion is that these rulings were not organic developments but rather carefully constructed steps to lay the groundwork for future decisions, like the Louisiana Callais case. This suggests a strategic approach to achieving desired legal outcomes, rather than a neutral application of the law.
The definition of “political” itself seems to be a point of contention. It’s suggested that Roberts employs a conservative interpretation, where unfavorable rulings are deemed political, while those he supports, even if ideologically driven, are presented as apolitical or simply “good.” This selective framing allows for the justification of actions that, to outside observers, appear overtly partisan.
The notion of a balanced Court, where judges might swing to achieve consensus, seems to have eroded. Instead, there’s a perception that a segment of the Court, including Roberts, has become “corrupt,” making genuine balance impossible. This isn’t just about differing legal interpretations; it’s about a perceived departure from impartiality, driven by ideological or even financial incentives.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is frequently cited as a prime example of the Court acting on the basis of partisan politics, specifically aligning with the agenda of Republican evangelical voters. The argument is that such a long-standing precedent would not be overturned without a strong political motivation, especially when abortion has been a highly politicized issue used for electoral gain.
Furthermore, the Court’s role in decisions that facilitate partisan gerrymandering and potentially alter the composition of the House of Representatives to protect a specific political administration is seen as undeniably partisan. This suggests a willingness to intervene in the electoral process in ways that benefit one political party, directly contradicting any claims of judicial neutrality.
The very act of declaring the Court is not political is, for many, inherently political. If the Court’s decisions were truly self-evident in their impartiality, such pronouncements would be unnecessary. Instead, the constant need to defend the Court’s neutrality suggests an awareness, perhaps even an acknowledgment, that its actions are indeed perceived as political.
The historical parallel drawn to Roger Taney, the Chief Justice during the Dred Scott decision, is stark. It implies that Roberts’s tenure might be remembered not for upholding justice, but for fundamentally undermining the credibility and impartiality of the Supreme Court, potentially leading to its diminished role or even dissolution in the public consciousness.
The ideological overlap between certain conservative Christian sects and the justices who have overturned significant precedents like Roe v. Wade is also highlighted. This suggests a shared ideological foundation influencing judicial outcomes, further blurring the lines between legal interpretation and religious or social activism.
The contradiction between Roberts’s words and the Court’s actions is a central theme. While he asserts non-partisanship, the consistent pattern of rulings that align with conservative political objectives leads many to believe that actions speak louder than words. The Court, in this view, is not merely acting politically but is actively serving the interests of specific political factions and ideological organizations.
The impact of these decisions on individual lives, such as the fear of Obergefell v. Hodges being overturned and the disruption of personal plans due to anticipated legal shifts, underscores the tangible consequences of what is perceived as the Court’s politicization. The Court’s decisions are not abstract legal exercises; they directly shape the lived experiences of millions.
The idea that conservatives may not view their policy positions as “political” but rather as inherently “correct or righteous” offers a potential insight into Roberts’s mindset. This self-perception, however, does not negate the fact that these positions have profound political implications and are deeply intertwined with partisan agendas.
The accusation that the Roberts Court has systematically dismantled the impartiality of the Supreme Court is a severe indictment, suggesting a deliberate and lasting damage to a foundational institution. The call for accountability, even suggesting legal repercussions for justices, reflects the depth of public anger and perceived betrayal.
The framing of the Republican party as a “full-on fascist party” and their judges as aligned with this ideology suggests a radicalization of political discourse and a belief that the current Court is an instrument of this agenda, perpetuating rigged elections and ensuring partisan dominance.
The notion of “vranyo,” a lie known and acknowledged as such by both speaker and listener, is used to describe Roberts’s pronouncements of non-partisanship. This suggests a deliberate performance of denial, intended not to convince but to assert power and contempt, signaling that the speaker can lie without consequence.
While Roberts’s role in upholding the Affordable Care Act was once seen as a moment of principled stand, his subsequent actions and the Court’s current direction have led many to question his motivations and legacy. The shift in his approach, or perhaps the revelation of his consistent agenda, has left many bewildered and distrustful.
The consistent pattern of shattering norms, but only when it serves their agenda, highlights a perceived hypocrisy. The argument is that such actions are not about preserving norms but about strategically advancing a political agenda, employing a form of trolling or performative defiance.
The concentration of power in the hands of a small group of justices, making decisions that affect hundreds of millions, is a point of concern. This significant power, wielded in what is perceived as a partisan manner, fuels the demand for greater accountability and perhaps a reevaluation of the Court’s structure.
The historical narrative is that Roberts was groomed for the Chief Justice role, with a long-standing plan to undo key legal protections, particularly regarding voting rights. This perspective suggests a deliberate, generational strategy orchestrated by conservative legal movements.
The concept of cases being strategically brought before the Court to deliberate precedence, with clerks actively monitoring and judges picking up cases deemed favorable to their agenda, paints a picture of a highly calculated and coordinated effort to achieve specific legal outcomes.
The suggestion that Roberts consistently acts to protect and advance the Republican party’s interests, rather than upholding democratic principles, is a direct accusation of partisan loyalty over judicial duty. Examples range from economic policy to voting rights, all seen as maneuvers to benefit the GOP.
The argument that the Court is not just partisan but actively working to dismantle democratic institutions and protections, such as presidential immunity, corporate personhood, and police immunity, paints a grim picture of its impact on American governance and civil liberties.
The understanding that the ACA’s individual mandate, a Republican idea in origin, was weakened by the Court, suggests a complex interplay of ideology and strategy, where even measures with conservative roots are undermined if they don’t align with the current partisan agenda.