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.
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.