I fully expected the legitimacy of this court to be challenged in this way; however I naively thought it would be a Blue State refusing to adhere to rolling back some protection. I should have known that the conservatives would bite the hand of a friendly court the first time they got any pushback
i think john roberts actually has been a little chastened by the fact that as soon as he handed down his opinion in Shelby County, republican legislatures immediately began discriminating against black voters
I think he's also become hyperaware that his legacy could be presiding over a partisan right wing court and is doing everything he can to course correct
This is my take. He’s more concerned about preserving the legitimacy of the court and his legacy and he’s well aware that the other conservative justices don’t give a flying fuck about precedent or the constitution or even keeping a figleaf of justification on their bigotry or lust for power
to be clear, i am not saying “john roberts, good guy.” i am saying, “john roberts, sincere ideologue” and “john roberts, capable of recognizing a strategic misstep.” pulling back on judicial dismantling of the VRA is of a piece with his push to more narrowly decide Dobbs in Mississippi’s favor.
I hope you’re right. I agree that he’s not nearly as much an ideologue as Alito and Thomas. But sometimes—to roughly quote WF Buckley—that’s a bit like saying it’s the tallest building in Topeka. I’m not sure he’s capable of pulling back, even if he concluded that they went too far.
I don’t think the point here is that he is less of an ideologue; he is an extremely sincere, extremist ideologue, particularly about race and abortion, who has a different approach to tactics than Thomas or Alito and worries the Court might be undermining these causes in some instances
You might be right. But I think part of his identity is about SCOTUS as an institution. It has delaminated on his watch. And it might be important enough to his identity that he is compelled to move toward center on some issues. “Toward” may not mean much b/c they are so bought and so far right.
He wants the rulings where the Breyers of the world sigh and respect precedents. Not the ones where in 2040 or so, because D POTUSes keep getting elected due to R idiots galvanizing the vote, SCOTUS wipes out everything they did.
I'd have agreed with you five years ago. I thought he was playing a long, slow game, implementing his sick ideology cautiously enough that it would be hard to insist his finger was on the scale.
Since ACB's confirmation, he's seen how quickly and easily the work can be done, and he's all in.
I mean, I don't think he's chastened at all by increased attacks on black voters. Years ago he would have worried about the backlash. But now he's had an object lesson about how little public opinion can touch him, and what he used to plan out precisely he's now spitballing and speedrunning.
if you figure that one of john robert's highest priorities is preserving the supreme court's power with him as chief justice of it, as well as his ideology, it ties together pretty neatly. he wants to enact his priorities but without the desire to see it all burn before he dies (since he's younger)
yes. one thing i think it is important to understand about a lot of these people is they aren’t nearly as cynical as we imagine them to be. by all accounts, john roberts sincerely believed that the VRA was an unfair imposition on people who had learned their lessons about discrimination.
I kind of wonder if the constant GOP overreaching is going to have a long-term effect on Roberts that turns him into a reliable moderate, even on things like voting rights that he has traditionally been way far out on. Feels unlikely, but I have been wrong before.
Which, for a fairly intelligent, highly educated lawyer, amounts to inexcusable willful ignorance. He's brainwashed by Koch Bro/Heritage Society/far-right propaganda and self-serving distortion of concepts. He's just a mild-mannered fanatic. Nancy Maclean's Democracy in Chains explains that.
He's an idiot. I think it's wild how obvious all this is to younger voters but older establishment folks (Roberts, Biden, Pelosi) are still operating like the Republicans play by the rules and have the country's best interests at heart.
And if his heart didn’t grow two sizes after this realization, Roberts probably grasps what enabling the GOP here will mean in the long term. I doubt he wants to go down in history as one the great enablers of the darker impulses of his constituency
But does he really understand the forces at work here? He is either being deeply naive or just plain oblivious as to the motivations of his conservative compatriots.
These guys attribute their personal successes to their wholly wrong theories of popular will and legal obligation and outside their reliable professional advancement just live lives of constant surprise and bewilderment
Do you think this was a misreading of his political fellow travelers or a mistaken faith in the better angels of our human nature? It’s hard to see him learning from the former in subsequent jurisprudence on other subjects.
I think he expected the racism and was okay with it. He's just upset at the lack of subtlety. He wants polite dinner table racism safely shielded behind benign euphemisms.
Hard to believe that he would expect Republicans not to embrace racial discrimination when necessary to retain power when they fully embrace every other non-democratic method. His entire majority was created through lies and rule changes. Why surprise here? He can’t be that naive.
Why is this hard to believe? Roberts came of political age at a time when the Republican Party had assembled a decisive national majority in its favor.
Sure he can. Mediocre white guys have been believing their success was all down to them and not a rigged system in their favor since the bronze age. It's not a stretch to think Roberts thinks/though that.
I think there is a common experience these days where the elite of the right believe they have more control over their political base than they actually do.
It first showed up when McCain had to chastise town hall goers for disparaging Obama and it peaked at Trump winning the nomination.
Probably safest to assume these guys have no ethical bottom and no moral tethers. Assuming they have a core of decency that is open to rational appeal seems destined to lead to heartbreak.
Seems the same to me. Roberts expected Republicans to politely use just enough racial discrimination to stay in power, while also creating a veneer of deniability and thus respectability. He didn't expect them to shout it from the rooftops and create maps that had no other plausible explanation.
I can see that excuse due to him not growing up in the south. Anyone that has spent anytime down here knew that the shit that Shelby county pulled was inevitable. I've been in enough rooms where some "fine upstanding people" thought they were in like minded company would say some vile shit.
I think people like Roberts like their racism to be subtle, insidious and long lasting. They find these obvious, blunt measures to br crass and tacky and harmful to long term power goals. It's not honest surprise. It's elitist disdain.
sure but "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" is subpar bumper sticker masquerading as profundity
Unfortunately the Ginsburg response zinger of ''this is like throwing away the umbrellas when it isn't raining" kind of belies the fact that it never really stopped raining.
I don’t quite understand why people are so reluctant to believe that a cloistered Reaganite ideologue who has marinated in elite legal circles for his entire adult life would be naive to the point of idiocy about race discrimination?
Personally, it’s because as a white guy of a certain age it’s pretty much impossible to escape the reality. Like, I went to get my car washed on Sunday and a guy I never met decided to tell me a story, unbidden, that included three racial slurs (one of which was to clarify another).
Particularly when some people of color in those elite, conservative legal circles would likely be the first to staunchly defend those naive views. (Thomas, of course, but I'm sure he's not the only one.)
Shockingly naive about other important things as well. He was the one who called a pretty impeccable standard for measuring gerrymanders “Social science gobbledygook” when it’s like yes you measure things by counting them and evaluating proportions.
even knowing better i am always a little surprised to the degree which many people (including people whose jobs involve reading a lot of books and news) have to personally experience a thing to believe it
John Roberts served in the Bush I justice department under Bill Barr, and argued that racial preferences were unconstitutional before the Supreme Court, undercutting the very laws the justice department was supposed to defend.
I wonder if it's because we are so used to bad faith coming from the right that it's hard to remember that extreme incompetence can look the same as bad faith.
Because his single-minded focus for his entire law career seemed to be on ripping up the VRA. He gleefully went after it in the Reagan years and took a case that would let him fuck it up as soon as he could once he got on the bench. Hard to believe he didn't game out the consequences.
There's definitely a sort of white person who is achievement focused and doesn't personally hold any racial animus that somehow just doesn't hear the actual dialogue of white people in private or consider its implications for people outside of those social circles
White people can he pretty good at not seeing racism. I’ve known two cops well in my life, via my mom. One’s racist but with a benevolent tone, and the other one’s just nasty about it. She does not seem to be willing to extrapolate that maybe this could be a larger issue.
He was on Bush's legal team for Bush v Gore. There's no way he can be that naive to what the Republican Party has been trying to do for the past 23 years.
I think this is precisely why I'd be shocked if he was this naive. He's been a Republican operative his entire career. Surely he would have noticed the party's decades long attempt to suppress the votes of minorities at some point?
I can believe that. But the idea of someone that high up can be that gobsmackingly naive is actually MORE infuriating to me than the idea that he was just earnestly racist.
People will say "A man that educated and connected can't be that dumb" but no! educated and connected people can definitely be dumb about a lot of things.
Because while bad faith certainly clusters noticeably more on the one side of the political spectrum than the other, uncharitable reasoning is fairly equally distributed...
Right. No one is colorblind. No colonized nation is colorblind, but Roberts couldn't get rid of Affirmative Action without declaring that if we ignore race, racism will disappear... like magic.
At the same time (e.g. Rucho) Roberts thinks that elections are fundamentally grubby things compared to lifetime judicial appointments and would prefer that the proles sort it out among themselves.
I think you're right--but it bespeaks a DEEP naivete. Seeing ourselves and our friends as the good guys who will just freely do the right thing is quite typical.for us white people.
It’s remarkably easy for a certain kind of person to say to themselves “it’s been so long since this bad actor tried to act badly” and ignore that the reason they haven’t is the very regulation they’re arguing NB is no longer needed.
Probably even Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo genuinely believe billionaires are good for society and make for a productive world. Actual Machiavellianism is really hard to maintain—it's too important for us to think that we're good people and our projects are worthwhile.
Yes! Out of all of them, I think Roberts is genuinely troubled by what they’ve wrought. And based on his odd separate opinions (“I’m ruling against you, gays, but I wish your the best nonetheless”) Kavanaugh also has some qualms.
It's interesting that your sensible, careful conclusions about this receive such blowback here. I'm not a fan of Roberts' jurisprudence, but the thing that gives me hope was his impatience with Scalia's partisan diatribes on the bench. He clearly cares about the reputation of the court.
I was asking in earnest - Roberts offers evidence for lots of different analyses. I do need to read more. But I also think his caring about the reputation of the court hasn’t stopped his participation in remarkably inflammatory decisions.
Didn't really mean to call you out, there. You were far from the worst! This was the post of Jamelle's that fit my response the best so I appended it here.
Roberts has been known to be full of shit but he did refrain from executing Obamacare that time. I don't think "inflammatory" is his brand.
Now I'm picturing John Roberts jamming an icepick into his car tire and then being astonished when all the air comes out. What a life of constant wonder and surprise that man must lead.
Can't recall exactly what it was, but I have a pretty distinct memory of RBG saying and/or writing something to the effect of "I told them this would happen, but they wouldn't listen" in real time about this exact thing, presumably in reference to Roberts and Kennedy.
Also, I don't lose much sleep trying to parse the motivations of ideological enemies. He's an immensely comfortable man who got where he is in life by helping to immiserate as many people as possible. Fuck him.
I mean, I get that if you’re dealing with OvensNow1488 on Twitter, but understanding what the people at the top are saying and arguing is useful, and while I happen to dislike Roberts I also think he operates differently even from other conservative shit-heels on the bench.
It honestly doesn't matter because when you get down to where the rubber meets the road the only pressure Roberts faces is social. Whatever Harlan Crow-types he hangs out with will get mad if he bucks the majority too hard, so he ultimately won't. And any reactionary is a coward and sadist at heart.
Okay, that’s your right. I’m a professional political observer with an interest in law and jurisprudence. Shaw is a legal academic and litigator. It’s probably in our interest to know the actual shape of what our opponents think and how they understand the world.
John Roberts is a perfect example of what I call the Ludwig Kaas principle — that a cynical ally of fascists is worse and more morally culpable than a true-believing fascist, because the true believer can snap out of it with a moral epiphany but the cynic is doing evil by his own lights.
Roberts has been fighting the VRA since he was one of the scumbag hatchetmen that Reagan brought in back in the 80s. I don't see how he could've been surprised by the immediate racist reaction to his gutting of the VRA when he spent the majority of his career trying to destroy it.
So, you are calling attention to the fact that Alabama felt empowered to reject the authority of the Roberts Court. Can't imagine he saw that coming or that it wasn't jarring. More importantly, how will that impact future decisions?
I think 'chastened' is maybe a little too charitable. I think he's more like the heist leader who wants everyone in the crew to lay low after the successful job, not start throwing around the cash, attracting the heat. Don't blow it!
I would be interested in hearing more about this, because from my perspective the only thing that seems to have chastened him is the fact of a 6-3 court significantly diminishing his control over it
Strong agree. It can be emotionally satisfying to pretend that they are all identical and immovable, but ignoring those cross pressures means we are writing off a potential axis of influence.
The key is to not get emotionally invested in pretending they are good faith actors, like matts often do.
I think at one time that was true, but conservatism/GOP is growing monolithic and, while some may still have varying values and interests, they are subsuming them to extremism in exchange for retaining power. Those who haven’t are out.
It is not just a peculiar way of treating a whole lot of people as one big mass, the kind of thing we rightly deplore when applied to whole ethnicities or adherents of a religion, but also the mirror opposite of excessive credulity.
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people recognize the problems with being too trusting but fail to recognize that the problems with being too DIStrusting are exactly the same.
I think it’s simpler and you’re getting pushback for not affirming the simple prior that every Republican-affiliated person is the equivalent of the villains in Captain Planet and intentionally trying to inflict maximal damage. From that perspective, naïveté is a lesser sin.
Perceived legitimacy of the Court is definitely one of his values. I think he mostly wants that legitimacy so that he can secure GOP policies, including disenfranchising black voters. I think it's just that the GOP has gotten so shameless that even he sees it as a threat to the Courts legitimacy.
The answer is as simple as Roberts being as clueless and naive about the motivations of political actors as Breyer proved himself to be in interview after interview before he finally retired.
I think you give Roberts too much credit and me too little. You suggest Roberts was 'chastened' by the GOP's immediate response to changes in VRA; I think he's reacting more to the damage done to the reputation of the Roberts Court. I suspect he's thinking of his legacy more than anything.
I said Roberts was “a little chastened.” Let’s substitute “little chastened” for the actual definition of the word.
“I think the response of Republican legislatures to Shelby had a small moderating effect on Roberts.” This is absolutely compatible with “He’s thinking about his legacy.”
I think the reason for the disagreement here is that "chastened" comes with the connotation that he was humbled by the experience. I (and others) don't believe that to be the case. Moderating your views to save your legacy is probably one of the most vain reasons to do so.
I've always thought that Roberts main motivation was for people to think he's smart, especially about legal stuff. He wants to be seen as an intellectual more than anything.
I suspect Roberts' sense of that legacy pretty much IS his identity at this point. When his legacy takes a hit, his response is going to be both personal and tactical. It can't be otherwise.
Okay. BUT a sincere question: do you believe his actual thinking about the VRA has changed or do you think he's responding to outside criticism?
I'm happy if the result is that Alabama voters get more access. But I'm skeptical as to Roberts' reasoning.
I don't think saying someone may be naïve, not too bright, and/or blinded by ideology rather than a savvy and cynical chess player is giving them credit or excusing them.
this was written eight years ago. in this past term, john roberts persuaded a skeptical kavanaugh to join him in preserving section 2 of the voting rights act. this is a dramatic shift that demands some explanation. what’s yours?
We're witnessing a quiet secession in several states besides Alabama. They're essentially withdrawing from the Constitution & thereby from the Union sans an explicit declaration. But this SCOTUS has already shown contempt for voting rights, inexplicably declaring that racism is no longer a problem.
Comments
Politico(!) calling out Leo, Ginni, and Citizens United(!!!)? Winds are a changin'.
Since ACB's confirmation, he's seen how quickly and easily the work can be done, and he's all in.
frustrating that people are that fucking unplugged from human nature as a judge but hey
I don’t think he can be swayed. And to me, there is no functional difference between an immutable belief and a cynical power play.
Like, have you read shelby county?
(*chortles like my late uncles did*)
It first showed up when McCain had to chastise town hall goers for disparaging Obama and it peaked at Trump winning the nomination.
See metro broadcasting v. FCC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Broadcasting,_Inc._v._FCC
We take issue with the idea that he might think it's particularly a problem and will do anything meaningful to stop it.
Roberts has been known to be full of shit but he did refrain from executing Obamacare that time. I don't think "inflammatory" is his brand.
evidence than a mere viewer.
Roberts: "Racism is over!"
::racists in multiple states **immediately** do racist shit::
Roberts: "Fuck me."
The key is to not get emotionally invested in pretending they are good faith actors, like matts often do.
Even when you don't mean it that way, people are scared of anything sounding like "you gotta hand it to John Roberts."
“I think the response of Republican legislatures to Shelby had a small moderating effect on Roberts.” This is absolutely compatible with “He’s thinking about his legacy.”
I'm happy if the result is that Alabama voters get more access. But I'm skeptical as to Roberts' reasoning.
Are we still trying to pretend this court is in any way legitimate or just?
It’s a rogue actor