Henry Flores ● The Hypocrisy of John Roberts ● Our Voices/Nuestras Voces

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 significant 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, Justice Roberts, I beg to differ.

I was a voting rights expert witness on Section 2, Section 5, and racial intent cases from 1986 to 2013, and I appeared before many three-judge panels and single judges, 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 years was that you could often predict the outcome of a trial by looking at which judge was presiding. If the judge had been appointed by a Republican president, then the decisions almost always favored the Republican side of the argument, and vice versa. I thought long and hard about this, and because I was trained as a political scientist and was somewhat of an idealist, I found it troubling. It contradicted everything I taught my students about the federal judiciary, and it formed a pattern that piqued my curiosity—until it finally occurred to me: federal judges are political appointees.

The first prerequisite for appointment is to be someone in good standing with party leadership. It is, after all, a presidential appointment. This means having a strong track record as a party loyalist and being ideologically compatible with those who select nominees. Secondly, nominees must pass a rather feeble vetting process that requires appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is generally a genteel, pro forma exercise managed by seasoned political operatives who rehearse nominees on how to answer the committee’s questions. If the committee approves, then the full Senate typically follows suit, and the individual is sworn in by the president.

Was John Roberts a good party man? Yes, he was (and is), spending his career as an attorney doing everything in his power to weaken the Voting Rights Act. He opposed voting rights even during law school. He was also a party activist in the field, allegedly involved in the “Brooks Brothers riot” in 2000, which disrupted the Miami-Dade County Elections Board during the Bush-Gore recount. He was a strong critic of voting rights throughout his time in the Department of Justice prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court. Yet 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?

Sitting on the highest court in the country, Chief Justice Roberts ultimately reached a position where he could pursue what appears to be a long-standing objective: weakening the

Voting Rights Act. Although he claimed to have no issue with the Act, his opinions in Shelby County and Callais v. Louisiana suggest otherwise. In both opinions, he begins by asserting that times have changed since the Civil Rights Act of 1965—as if racism has simply disappeared.

Mr. Chief Justice, knowing that you are a devout Catholic, let me remind you that Jesus said, “There is one thing you lack: if you want to be perfect, give what you have to the poor and follow me.” Lao Tzu wrote, “Never judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.” If you, sir, lived as a member of a racial minority, you would understand that you are simply wrong. Racism, prejudice, and discrimination still exist in many areas of life. What has changed is how they are expressed and implemented.

Decision-makers such as yourself attempt to obscure reality by relying on obfuscation and diversion. You base your decisions on voting patterns of political parties, even though that is not the intent behind the protections of the Voting Rights Act. While the Act states it protects the voting rights of all citizens—a political compromise to ensure its passage—it was fundamentally designed to protect racial and language minorities. White voters are not racially gerrymandered except in ways that strengthen their voting power, nor do they face barriers to registering or voting. Individuals impersonating immigration agents do not appear at polling places to intimidate white voters, nor are white voters told they have lost the right to vote.

In short, Justice Roberts, like all human beings, you have allowed your own biases and ideological orientation to shape your perception of the voting rights of racial and language minorities. To claim otherwise is disingenuous—or hypocritical.