[ad_1]
Regarding the Jan. 1 news article “Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts Avoids Controversy in Report”:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. discussed U.S. District Judge Ronald N. Davis’ role in implementing the Supreme Court’s landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education and Thurgood Marshall’s annual End of the Year. The Report on Federal Judiciary” offers a wholesome irony, though it may be a sad irony.
The irony lies in the fact that Chief Justice Roberts’ judicial record offers a startling table of hostility to enforcing the 14th Amendment’s promise of equality. In a 2007 Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle First School District, the court ruled that the school board’s voluntary adoption of a race-conscious It was found that the Equal Protection Clause was violated. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts preached to the public with the bromide insight that “the way to stop racism is to stop racism.” Six years later, his majority vote in Shelby County v. Holder required jurisdictions with a history of racism in voting rights to obtain prior authorization from the Justice Department before changing voting laws. revoked Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He said that the Deep South had cleaned up its racist past, so this central protection of the Voting Rights Act was no longer needed. The state has announced plans to introduce numerous changes to voting procedures, from voter identification laws to shortened voting hours. This is a change that unfairly penalizes minorities.
When it comes to what the Constitution must offer to realize equality and guarantees of equal justice to racial and other minorities, Chief Justice Roberts has a tight and intolerant understanding and judicial record. This cramped understanding is perfectly manifested in the Pope’s challenge in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case. The challenge dropped the state’s ban on same-sex marriage as a violation of due process and equal protection. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court dissented, but it was inconceivable that the Constitution would guarantee equal protection to homosexual and lesbian Americans who wish to marry.
This brings us back to the irony of the Chief Justice, in his report on federal justice, highlighting the work of Davis and Marshall in the struggle for equal justice. Surprisingly, but not surprisingly, he omitted mention of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the leak of the preliminary draft opinion. Sadly ironic is the asymmetry between his judicial record on issues of racial justice and the noble narrative of Davis and Marshall.
Robert Hornstein, Arlington
[ad_2]
Source link
