Activity

Our democracy now depends on John Roberts impartiality – now there’s an indication of how far this nation has fallen.

https://lulac.org/advocacy/issues/john_roberts/

However, Roberts has also demonstrated a hostility to individual rights, women’s reproductive rights, and he has taken positions that would undermine free speech. His experience as a judge is limited, but what little record he has on the bench raises serious questions about his judicial philosophy and whether his ideology would weigh more heavily on his decisions thus making him less likely to be impartial. Although it has been said that he rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion. It has also been stated that he is willing to support others who exhibit similar values.

Many of the civil rights groups have raised strong concerns, and the American Disabilities Association has flat out opposed him (NOTE: This is unusual. They generally do not come out strongly in opposition of judicial candidates – I’ve attached their press release below). …

——————

In Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton (2003), Roberts and only one other judge dissented when the court denied en banc review of a panel decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act, as it applied to a real estate development project. Roberts’s dissent strongly suggested that he thought it would be unconstitutional to apply the Endangered Species Act in the case. His dissent also advances a crabbed view of Congressional power that could threaten to undermine a wide swath of federal protections, ranging from criminal laws to workplace safeguards. The Supreme Court recently rejected Roberts’ view of Congress’ legislative authority. Given recent reports that have come out from the EPA on environmental justice, this latter issue raises strong concerns for the Hispanic community that has been disproportionately and adversely impacted by issues such as power plants in their neighborhoods, toxic dumping sites, etc.

Judge Roberts Interprets Separation Between Church and State Loosely
Roberts co-authored an amicus brief filed by the United States in Lee v. Weisman (1992). In this amicus brief he urged the Court to scrap the long-standing test the Court has used to decide whether laws and practices violate the Establishment Clause. His argument was not only rejected by the Court but criticized by the majority for its erroneous First Amendment analysis, which brings into question his judicial philosophy. …

—————–

Extremist Ideology:
Roberts declared that the current Supreme Court is not conservative enough specifically in response to the October 1999 term during which the conservative majority judicial activism included the striking down of the Violence Against Women Act and throwing out an age discrimination suit on federalism grounds.

Mr. Roberts is a member of two right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group’s Legal Advisory Council. …

————————

and on and on this informative Closer Look at this Chief Justice goes.