An article by Sam Kleiner posted yesterday on the New Republic’s website is titled “John Roberts shows he has no idea how money works in politics.” Mr. Kleiner must not understand the real purpose of the Conservative Movement’s decades-long crusade against campaign-finance laws. In fact, Roberts showed in McCutcheon v. FEC (yet again) that he […]
“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” That’s how Roberts began the opinion. So I guess we can now assume that the Court will strike down all those voter-ID laws that so clearly impact that most basic of rights, and will do so […]
John Roberts wrote in yesterday’s opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC that Congress may still “regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption.” He then limited “corruption” to an actual quid pro quo. Which raises the question of what, exactly, the appearance of quid pro quo corruption looks like. Y’know, as opposed […]
Roberts suggested that he believes Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood can bring forth claims of religious freedom, saying courts have held that “corporations can bring racial discrimination claims as corporations” and that “those cases involve construction of the term ‘person.’” — John Roberts Offers Conservatives A Way Out Of Birth Control Dilemma, Sahil Kapur, TPM, […]
The Way to Stop Discrimination on the Basis of Race Is To Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race. — Chief Justice John Roberts, Jun. 28, 2007, writing for a four-justice plurality in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. Given that statement of his own belief, and his concomitant […]
If there is no mystery about the nature of the chief justice’s views, I remain baffled by their origin. Clearly, he doesn’t trust Congress; in describing conservative judges, that’s like observing that the sun rises in the east. But oddly for someone who earned his early stripes in the Justice Department and White House Counsel’s […]
OH. WOW. I actually called this exactly right in my post yesterday—this being, well, this. [Inadvertently-omitted link to court opinion inserted. H/T Dan Crawford.] Specifically: Roberts’ 5-4 opinion today in Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, the Voting Rights Act case that I discussed, and predicted the outcome of, in that post yesterday. Regular AB readers […]
New York Times points us to a new study on the Robert’s Supreme Court decisions and ‘pro-business’. NOT long after 10 a.m. on March 27, a restless audience waited for the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the second of two historic cases involving same-sex marriage. First, however, Justice Antonin Scalia attended to another matter. […]
Breaking: 1st update- #prop8 unlikely to be upheld; either struck down or #scotus won’t decide case. More in 30 mins. This is the more important of the two gay-marriage cases. Tomorrow’s argument will be on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but almost no one (best as I can tell), thinks […]
In a blog post titled “In Voting Rights Arguments, Chief Justice Misconstrued Census Data” on NPR’s website, veteran NPR Supreme Court correspondent Nina Totenberg deconstructs a sophism offered by John Roberts at the oral argument on Wednesday on the continued constitutionality of a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which Congress has […]