Supreme Court Doesn’t Even Bother Trying To Seem Non-partisan Anymore…

In pic stand­ing left to right is Assc. jus­tice Neil Gorsuch, jus­tice Sonia Sotomayor, Helena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh. Seated left to right is Justice Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, jus­tice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito

In case you are won­der­ing how the Supreme Court under George Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts will be viewed in his­to­ry, the long list of 5 – 4 deci­sions along par­ti­san lines, has already defined the way the Right-wing court bear­ing his name will be remem­bered for­ev­er.
Along with Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and the stolen seat giv­en to Neil Gorsuch and the oth­er Trump appointee weepy Brett Kavanaugh, the court’s right-wing jus­tices have made no attempt to be dis­pas­sion­ate or fair in its rul­ings as a con­ser­v­a­tive major­i­ty.

The Roberts court has embarked on a steady path of 5 – 4 deci­sions favor­ing Conservative caus­es. It has left pre­cious lit­tle room for those who believe in the court as a last decider of fair­ness, to have con­tin­ued faith in this court.
In the lat­est Ruling on a deci­sion which should have been easy for any coun­ty court as a mat­ter of fair­ness, decen­cy and com­mon sense, the court in typ­i­cal 5 – 4 fash­ion, ruled on Thursday, June 27th that par­ti­san ger­ry­man­der­ing was a polit­i­cal ques­tion beyond the reach of the fed­er­al court. (under the sig­na­ture of John Roberts)
There are no fair and man­age­able stan­dards for judges to eval­u­ate whether a ger­ry­man­der is con­sti­tu­tion­al, Roberts wrote in his major­i­ty opin­ion.
The deci­sion was in response to cas­es of con­gres­sion­al dis­tricts in North Carolina and Maryland.
According to the HuffingtonPost​.com, the court’s deci­sion ensures state law­mak­ers will have vir­tu­al­ly unlim­it­ed license to choose the vot­ers who elect them. By pack­ing the oppos­ing party’s vot­ers into as few dis­tricts as pos­si­ble or spread­ing them out among many dis­tricts, law­mak­ers can make it next to impos­si­ble for the oth­er par­ty to win a major­i­ty of leg­isla­tive or con­gres­sion­al seats. 

Chief Justice John Roberts

In a 2012 Article titled; The Incredible Polarization and Politicization of the Supreme Court, the Atlantic’s David Paul Kuhn wrote, schol­ars con­sid­er these nar­row deci­sions the most polit­i­cal. Research indi­cates that 5‑to‑4 rul­ings are the most like­ly to be over­turned by lat­er Courts. They car­ry the same legal author­i­ty as more unan­i­mous opin­ions — but not the same moral author­i­ty. In this vein, the one branch of gov­ern­ment designed to be above par­ti­san­ship echoes the rise in hyper­par­ti­san­ship seen through­out Washington.
Justice Elena Kagan, in a dis­sent­ing opin­ion joined by the three oth­er lib­er­al-lean­ing jus­tices, wrote about the cor­ro­sive effect ger­ry­man­der­ing has on American democ­ra­cy. New tech­nol­o­gy, she said, would only make the prac­tice more extreme. “If left unchecked, ger­ry­man­ders like the ones here may irrepara­bly dam­age our sys­tem of gov­ern­ment,” she wrote. “Of all times to aban­don the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one.

From Citizens United which states that Corporation are peo­ple to evis­cer­at­ing the vot­ing rights act on the flim­sy excuse it is no longer need­ed, the Roberts court has demon­strat­ed that the faith cer­tain Americans had in the court to be dis­pas­sion­ate is mis­placed.
What we are wit­ness­ing is a com­plete makeover of America as we know it.
And not in a good way.
That will be the lega­cy of the Roberts court.