..I mean fuck. Him. I just ran out of space to say it.
Over thirty years ago John Roberts lost a battle to undo civil rights laws that even Reagan saw fit to overrule concerning voters rights.
Mobile [v. Bolden]; the decision overturned by the 1982 law signed by President Reagan, established that Voting Rights Act plaintiffs must show that the law they are challenging was enacted with a “racially discriminatory motivation” — the mere fact that the law has the effect of disenfranchising or otherwise harming voters of color was not enough.
[...]
the Voting Rights Act now permits plaintiffs to challenge any law that “results” in a particular racial group having less access to the polls. - emphasis added
Not only does Roberts hide behind this
facile notion that:
“the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”
- John Roberts | 2007
..when refusing to admit the very need for affirmative Action today, as Justice Sotomayor makes clear..
“The stark reality is that race still matters. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination..
..we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. It is this view that works harm, by perpetuating the facile notion that what makes race matter is acknowledging the simple truth that race does still matter.”
Iow's acknowledging racism does not create it
Roberts is up to it again; out of the same two-step bag of judicial tricks as the "narrow ruling" gambit used by the "conservatives" in the Union busting Harris v. Quinn case,..
...and again in the Hobby Lobby case as Ruth Bader Ginsburg exposes:
But, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, there is almost no limitation on the logic of the majority’s view.
Almost any closely held companies—which make up a substantial chunk of the American economy—can now claim a religious orientation, and they can now seek to excuse themselves from all sorts of obligations, including honoring certain anti-discrimination laws.
And after today’s “narrow” rulings, those cases will come.
..repeating the process with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act | Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder - The Robert's court promised a narrow ruling" yet:
Four years later, though, Roberts used the Northwest Austin precedent as a wedge to destroy both Section 4 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as much of its effectiveness, in the case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder.
Now though Roberts is getting more flagrant with his racist
belief that, since racism doesn't exist these days sufficient to warrant the section 4 formula that gives meaning to section 5 protections in the Voting Rights Act, then Hell, why keep the Fair Housing Act around either?
Just because every Federal appeals court has ruled that results matter more than what Roberts or any bigot would have us think they
believe, or maybe more accurately; pretend they believe:
Every single federal appeals court to consider the question has held that the federal Fair Housing Act permits what are known as “disparate impact” suits — suits which allow a discrimination suit to prevail if the defendant engages in a practice that has a discriminatory effect on racial minorities (pdf), unless the practice serves some other legitimate interest.
That all sounds reasonable. Why rely on the biased opinion of a defendant or a Judge when the actual impact on people is 1) known and 2) can be shown.
Not in Roberts book:
Yet the fact that federal appeals courts have all agreed that the Fair Housing Act authorizes disparate impact suits is, ironically, a bad sign for civil rights.
- emphasis added
That sounds sounds very reasonable. So how could recognizing the "disparate impact' on racial minorities in these cases be a bad sign for civil rights?
On top of that; why have to 'prove the discriminatory motivations' of a racist who have for generations lied about that very thing? Instead, allow for the actual discriminatory effect on racial minorities as has been thoroughly documented, to take precedence.. unless of course..
..a case like this presents another chance for Roberts to, once again, teach us how wrong it is to live in the real world. A world where we all should have faith in the stated "intent" of the racist as they tell it is good for us. Not how it actually works out as we see with our lying eyes
The Supreme Court typically does not take up matters that have achieved a consensus among the lower federal courts, but this is the third time the justices have taken up this issue (the first two cases settled while they were still pending before the Court).
That’s a sign that the Court is eager to make new law in this space.
Kudos to Karoli @ Crooks & Liars for continuing to nail these kinds of shenanigans by our "conservative" supreme court (June 2, 2015) with excellent research and analysis in accurate detail:
Chief Justice Roberts Set To Gut Fair Housing Act After Failing 30 Years Ago
The case: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project.
Your extra-judicial activism speaks louder than your words ever will Roberts
- imo
I've got to step out for a bit and will be back shortly - Thanks for stopping by and putting up with another rant - minus the accurate details & analysis that Karoli is so good at putting together - that is