Klansmen in Black: The SC's Death Blow Against Voting Rights Is the Culmination of John Roberts's 50-Year Crusade

[B.See]

The Supreme Court’s Death Blow Against Voting Rights Is the Culmination of John Roberts’s 50-Year Crusade - The Nation via MSN
Beginning with his first job in the Reagan Justice Department, the chief justice has been hell-bent on dismantling the Voting Rights Act.

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court essentially eviscerated the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Callais v. Louisiana. The 6–3 party-line decision effectively ends any protection against racial gerrymandering and vote dilution, and opens the doors to redistricting across the South that will likely decimate Black and Latino representation in Congress, as well as state legislatures and municipal governments.

Civil rights groups, Democrats, and moderate Republicans wanted to use the VRA reauthorization to clarify that Section 2 of the VRA prohibited election laws and procedures that had a racially discriminatory effect, not just those passed with clear racially discriminatory intent.

But ideological conservatives within the DOJ were spoiling for the fight. They were content to extend the act, just so long as it was impossible to use. Roberts led the way. Roberts’s papers from this era, housed at the National Archives, show his determination and dedication. They include memos and talking points, draft op-eds, scripted answers for bosses to deliver in meetings and before Congress, and presentations for senators and Hill staff. His files show how Roberts devised the messaging strategies that made it possible for the administration to claim that it supported reauthorization, while actually helping neuter the VRA—a skill he would go on to master as chief justice.

When Roberts was asked in his confirmation hearings by Democratic Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin why he then “want[ed] to make Section 2 cases so difficult to prove,” he distorted the 1982 political debate, rewrote its history, and downplayed his own leadership. One could even make the case that he misled Congress under oath.

TRANSLATION: The fkr LIED.

[wcmagumba]

1. I'm starting to call it the Jim Crowe Court...the name seems to fit...

[Faux pas]

2. All of the six

assholes lied and nobody cared

[RockRaven]

3. Every single political and legal pundit who has ever called him a moderate or moderating voice

is a goddamn ignoramus or liar. There is no "mask off" moment happening here. He is today who he has always been this whole time. And every honest journo/pundit who does their homework has always had him correctly pegged.

Remember which media figures lied to you, and stop paying attention to them, FFS.

[orangecrush]

5. The KKKourt.

[B.See]

6. Precisely. I've posted about Roberts and Alito, but

I've saved my most despised 'justice' for last.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive

Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.

Why John Roberts’ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is clearly aware of public perceptions related to the high court, though he apparently wants Americans to see him and fellow justices as above the political fray. The Associated Press reported on his latest public remarks:

“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” he said. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”

His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.

As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not “part of the political process … and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.”.....

Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as “political actors”? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.

But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as “political actors” is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts’ remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.”....

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, “Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy.” Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.

The tarnishing of the Supreme Court — its credibility, its integrity and its reputation — has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, that’s their right, but if they want to help restore the institution’s standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Court’s problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.

Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.