Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas' gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

State Representatives conduct a committee meeting on August 1 in Austin, Texas. - Brandon Bell/Getty Images
The brazen partisan redistricting underway in Texas, with Republicans attempting to entrench themselves in office and Democrats weighing a counter-offensive in blue states, was greenlit by the US Supreme Court six years ago.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in an opinion for a 5-4 court, declared that federal judges could not review extreme partisan gerrymanders to determine if they violated constitutional rights.

Roberts’ opinion reversed cases that would have allowed such districts – drawn to advantage one political party over another irrespective of voters’ interests – to be challenged as violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and association and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

The justices split among the familiar ideological lines, with the five conservatives ruling against partisan gerrymanders and the four liberals dissenting.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/chief-justice-john-roberts-enabled-115326184.html

Worst Chief Justice since Roger Taney.

[UTUSN]

1. And he gets away without that much blame compared to many standard boogeymen.

[genxlib]

2. I am assuming that this is bad editing

Pretty clearly they were in favor of partisan BS

The justices split among the familiar ideological lines, with the five conservatives ruling against partisan gerrymanders and the four liberals dissenting.

I assume they either swapped the "against" instead of "for" or dropped the "non" from partisan

[harumph]

23. Yes, WTF?

[Scrivener7]

3. We better do the same where we can.

[Picaro]

4. Pretty much all Johnnie's fault

Citizen’s United, the VRA cases, declaring extreme gerrymandering cases “non-justiciable” and a lot more can all be tied directly back to Roberts.

He rarely gets anywhere near the condemnation he so richly deserves.

I call him the genial assassin.

Because he doesn’t scowl and grimace and angrily attack like Alito and Thomas he seems.to always dodge the attention he should get. His strikes are deadly and strategic.

He is destroying the country by strangling it with bad law.

[LeftInTX]

20. He's just like Alito and Thomas, but it's no more his fault than their fault.

He has no more power than Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett or Kavanaugh


Although he is somewhat more moderate than Alito and Thomas, it doesn't matter whether scowls or grimaces.

It's like John Cornyn versus Ted Cruz. Pick your poison.

[bluestarone]

5. I wish all 6 rethug supreme court judges ILL HEALTH

I could give a shit less how they die.

[ECL213]

7. Just what we need...

Dickhead Donnie installing more Justices.

[bluestarone]

16. You actually think they would be worse?

NO WAY!

[ECL213]

19. You're being too optimistic.

[GiqueCee]

6. Worst Chief Justice EVER...

... may he roast in Hell for his obscene corruption.
Chief Justice Morris Waite, who presided over the 1886 Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case comes in a close second in my view, since he opened the barn door for corporate personhood when he said, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
But the sheer volume of outrageous abrogations of established precedent ensures Roberts' place as a sniveling toady at Trump's beck and call for the rest of eternity.

[B.See]

10. Snivelling toady is right. All 5 conservatives have

less scruples than a fkn brick. And the 6th hardly better.

They aren't even ashamed to show it anymore.

[GiqueCee]

17. Republicans...

... have always hated the very concept of democracy. It is antithetical to foundations of their diseased belief system. It's a wonder they can even say the word without gagging, but they at least used to do it, just to keep up appearances. Now they don't even bother to pretend anymore. Mike Lee of Utah is a glaring example of that: "Democracy isn't the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity [sic] are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that". (October, 2020) Emphasis mine.

[zorbasd]

8. Yup, another POS at the SCOTUS helm.

Worthless POS.

[pnwmom]

9. There isn't a fourth liberal. So who was the fourth? nt

[virgdem]

12. The 4th was RBG, who died in September of 2020.

If you reread the 1st paragraph, it refers to a ruling made 6 years ago in 2019, a year before she died.

[pnwmom]

21. Thanks! That reminded me of a sore point, unfortunately.

People had been urging her to resign when she had her second, very serious, cancer -- at the beginning of Biden's term. But she thought she was irreplaceable, I guess, so she waited till it was too late, and we ended up with ACB.

[virgdem]

22. I'm with you on that. Given her cancer diagnosis

She really should have stepped down during Obama's tenure. Now we are suffering with the most corrupt Court in our history.

[Bettie]

11. I'm betting they will find a way

to say that only states controlled by Republicans can gerrymander, because....reasons.

[NNadir]

13. Too bad I don't believe in ghosts. If I did, I would say...

...that the ghost of Roger Taney would be relieved to see his title as the worst Supreme Court Chief Justice in history being given a run for the money.

Taney of course declared human beings to be farm animals, but unlike the political hack Roberts he was never in position to declare the Constitution unconstitutional.

[Kid Berwyn]

15. Trump Co-Conspirator and Enabler-in-Cheat

John Roberts is a piece of shit traitor.

[LeftInTX]

18. The Chief Justice does not preside!

He's one of nine. Sometimes he will write the opinion, sometimes another justice will write the opinion. "Chief" is an administrative title.

Even if there were 8 liberals and 1 conservative, he would still be the Chief Justice. And he would have written a "dissent" in that particular case. It would still be called the "Roberts' Court".

His vote is only one vote.

It's the "body" of the court that matters.