The Hypocrisy of John Roberts
Henry Flores, PhD
voiceofthemainland.blogspot.com/voces-index
Recently, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, in the wake of a great deal of criticism over the Court’s decision in Callais v Louisiana that gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, gave a speech defending his fellow ultra-conservative justices saying that they were not political. Well, Judge Roberts, I beg to differ.
I was a voting rights expert witness, Section 2, 5 and racial intent, from 1986-2013, and appeared before many a three-judge panel or single judge, mostly in the Southern and Western Districts of the Fifth Circuit in the federal court system. One of the interesting “things” I noticed throughout these many years was that you could predict the outcome of the trial by looking at which judge was sitting in adjudication. If the judge was appointed by a Republican president, then the decisions always favored the Republican side of the argument and vice-versa. I thought of this long and hard and, because I was a political scientist by training and a bit of an idealist, I thought this was strange and it violated all I taught my students about the federal judiciary and it also formed a pattern that piqued my curiosity. Until it hit me, federal judges are political appointees. So, the first prerequisite for appointment is to be someone in good standing with the party elite, it is after all a presidential appointment. This means having a good track record as a party disciple and being ideologically compatible with those who pick nominees. Secondly, they must pass a feeble vetting process that requires appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is generally a genteel, proforma exercise, managed by professional politicos who rehearse nominees on the correct answers from the committee. If the committee approves then the full Senate will approve and the person is sworn in by the president.
Was John Roberts a good party man? Yes, he was (is) spending his carrier as an attorney trying to do everything in his power to kill the Voting Rights Act. He was anti-voting rights in law school. He was also a party activist in the field joining the “Brooks Brother’s Riot” in the 2000 that assaulted the Miami-Dade County Elections board during the Bush-Gore vote recounting. He was a fierce anti-voting rights advocate throughout his time in the Department of Justice prior to his ascension to the Supreme Court. During his confirmation hearings he stated, “The existing Voting Rights Act, the constitutionality has been upheld, and I don’t have any issue with that.” Really, really!?!
Sitting on the highest court in the country Justice Roberts finally reached a place where he could achieve his life’s ambition, the destruction of the Voting Rights Act. Although stating that he had no issue with the act, his opinionated decisions in Shelby County and Callais v Louisiana, reflect otherwise. In both opinions he begins his observations by stating times have changed since the Civil Rights Acts of 1965. Racism has disappeared, like in a magic show! Mister Chief Justice, knowing that you are a good Catholic let me remind you that Jesus said that “there is one thing you lack, if you want to be perfect, give what you own to the poor and join me.” Lao Tzu said, “Never judge a person until you’ve walked a long mile in their shoes.” If you, sir, lived as a racial minority person you would understand that you are just “flat out” wrong. Racism, prejudices and discrimination in almost all areas of life still exist. What has changed is the manner it is manifested and implemented. Decision makers, such as yourself, attempt to mystify reality by hiding behind obfuscation and diversion. You based your decisions on the voting patterns of political parties when this is not the intent behind the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Although the Act says it was written to protect the voting rights of all, this was a political compromise designed to ensure passage; it was designed to protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities. White people are not racially gerrymandered, except to strengthen their voting strength and there are no barriers placed before white people to register or vote. Fake immigration agents don’t appear at voting places to intimidate white voters. White people are not told they have lost the right to vote.
In short, Justice Roberts, like any human being you let your own prejudices and ideological orientation guide your perception of the voting rights of racial and language minorities. To say otherwise is just being disingenuous or hypocritical.
The Hypocrisy of John Roberts
Recently, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, in the wake of a great deal of criticism over the Court’s decision in Callais v Louisiana that gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, gave a speech defending his fellow ultra-conservative justices saying that they were not political. Well, Judge Roberts, I beg to differ.
I was a voting rights expert witness, Section 2, 5 and racial intent, from 1986-2013, and appeared before many a three-judge panel or single judge, mostly in the Southern and Western Districts of the Fifth Circuit in the federal court system. One of the interesting “things” I noticed throughout these many years was that you could predict the outcome of the trial by looking at which judge was sitting in adjudication. If the judge was appointed by a Republican president, then the decisions always favored the Republican side of the argument and vice-versa. I thought of this long and hard and, because I was a political scientist by training and a bit of an idealist, I thought this was strange and it violated all I taught my students about the federal judiciary and it also formed a pattern that piqued my curiosity. Until it hit me, federal judges are political appointees. So, the first prerequisite for appointment is to be someone in good standing with the party elite, it is after all a presidential appointment. This means having a good track record as a party disciple and being ideologically compatible with those who pick nominees. Secondly, they must pass a feeble vetting process that requires appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is generally a genteel, proforma exercise, managed by professional politicos who rehearse nominees on the correct answers from the committee. If the committee approves then the full Senate will approve and the person is sworn in by the president.
Was John Roberts a good party man? Yes, he was (is) spending his carrier as an attorney trying to do everything in his power to kill the Voting Rights Act. He was anti-voting rights in law school. He was also a party activist in the field joining the “Brooks Brother’s Riot” in the 2000 that assaulted the Miami-Dade County Elections board during the Bush-Gore vote recounting. He was a fierce anti-voting rights advocate throughout his time in the Department of Justice prior to his ascension to the Supreme Court. During his confirmation hearings he stated, “The existing Voting Rights Act, the constitutionality has been upheld, and I don’t have any issue with that.” Really, really!?!
Sitting on the highest court in the country Justice Roberts finally reached a place where he could achieve his life’s ambition, the destruction of the Voting Rights Act. Although stating that he had no issue with the act, his opinionated decisions in Shelby County and Callais v Louisiana, reflect otherwise. In both opinions he begins his observations by stating times have changed since the Civil Rights Acts of 1965. Racism has disappeared, like in a magic show! Mister Chief Justice, knowing that you are a good Catholic let me remind you that Jesus said that “there is one thing you lack, if you want to be perfect, give what you own to the poor and join me.” Lao Tzu said, “Never judge a person until you’ve walked a long mile in their shoes.” If you, sir, lived as a racial minority person you would understand that you are just “flat out” wrong. Racism, prejudices and discrimination in almost all areas of life still exist. What has changed is the manner it is manifested and implemented. Decision makers, such as yourself, attempt to mystify reality by hiding behind obfuscation and diversion. You based your decisions on the voting patterns of political parties when this is not the intent behind the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Although the Act says it was written to protect the voting rights of all, this was a political compromise designed to ensure passage; it was designed to protect the voting rights of racial and language minorities. White people are not racially gerrymandered, except to strengthen their voting strength and there are no barriers placed before white people to register or vote. Fake immigration agents don’t appear at voting places to intimidate white voters. White people are not told they have lost the right to vote.
In short, Justice Roberts, like any human being you let your own prejudices and ideological orientation guide your perception of the voting rights of racial and language minorities. To say otherwise is just being disingenuous or hypocritical.
Henry Flores, PhD
Distinguished University Research Professor Emeritus
School of Law
St. Mary's University
San Antonio, TX
Distinguished University Research Scholar in Residence
Department of Political Science
University of Houston
Houston, TX
(210) 846-8260
No comments:
Post a Comment