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.
This is one of those silly little games. When your entire framework for analysis depends on certain political principals, you can then be coy and pretend that the results that follow are not political, because after all they simply follow with impeccable legal reasoning from a closely held judicial philosophy. Of course, where do those closely held judicial philosophies come from? Why, the judge’s instincts about policy priorities, their reaction to the flow of Constitutional Law as they studied it or, in the case of Thomas, what Harlan Crow pays him to think. In the case of someone like Roberts, you’re playing the long game so being disciplined about how you apply your framework means Trump only get 90% of what he wants and therefore you can say shit like “we’re not political” with a straight face.
To be fair, all sides have agendas that inform their thinking. Some agendas are just way more evil than others.
At this point I think they’ve pretty much abandoned any trappings that they were just following a judicial philosophy (that just happened to be good for conservative politics). Their recent rulings don’t have a consistent philosophy other than “Republicans should win”. Precedent doesn’t matter, their own attestations don’t matter, originalism doesn’t matter. They’ll rule the same basic case two ways if one is brought by Republicans and the other Democrats.
Remember the “major questions doctrine” they invented so they can decide the text of laws don’t matter if the result is a big change? That seems to be MIA when Trump does wild stuff by executive order alone. Now it’s all just deferring to the executive.