I OPPOSED JOHN ROBERTS BECAUSE I RECALLED ROGER TANEY
©Wendell Griffen, 2023
On
June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down affirmative
action admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North
Carolina. The majority opinion for both decisions was written by Chief Justice
John Roberts Jr.
I opposed the nomination by former President George W. Bush that John Roberts become a justice, and eventually chief justice, of SCOTUS. But I was not alone. Consider the following statement by another public figure.
The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my
other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are
voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and
rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of
the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will
arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases --
what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly
difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and
interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That
last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's
core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth
and breadth of one's empathy.
In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not
be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear.
Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those
circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an
appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or
whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women
to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers
Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only
tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether
a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work
alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical
ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.
I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed
that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk
about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did
say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening
out the playing field between the strong and the weak.
I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much
the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record
and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far
more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to
the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he
seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to
eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these
same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make
it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he
doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening
the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the
position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions
in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I
ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political
philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the
assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.
The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts'
nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong… I hope
that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society.
I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all
ideological stripes.
U.S.
Senator Barack H. Obama made that statement when he announced that he would
vote against confirming John Roberts Jr. to become Associate Justice of SCOTUS.
Obama’s complete statement can be read at this hyperlink:
I was licensed to practice law in 1979, forty-four years ago. In addition to practicing law for almost fifteen years, I am a former law professor who taught constitutional law, pre-trial criminal procedure, administrative law, and a seminar on law and cultural competence at the Bowen School of Law of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock between 2009 and 2011. From January 1, 1996, until December 31, 2008, I decided civil and criminal appeals as a judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals. From January 1, 2011, until December 31, 2022, I presided over criminal and civil cases in the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Arkansas, the judicial circuit with the most civil and criminal cases in Arkansas.
To borrow a line spoken by the character Tyrion Lannister on the HBO Game of Thrones series, “… I know things” when it comes to constitutional law, judging, and appeals.
I knew in 2005, when George W. Bush nominated John Roberts to become an Associate Justice on the SCOTUS, that his intelligence and legal acumen had been used to advance interests and positions that maintained bigotry, discrimination, and disregard for unprivileged persons. That knowledge led me to oppose his nomination, and I said so at a public policy forum during the September 2005 annual meeting of the National Baptist Convention USA, Inc. in Atlanta, Georgia.
Like Obama, I have long viewed John Roberts – at the time of his nomination, after he was eventually confirmed as Chief Justice following the death of William Rehnquist (for whom Roberts worked as a young lawyer), and now – as someone whose deepest loyalties favor the purveyors and beneficiaries of racial and other systemic injustice.
Beyond
that, I sensed that Roberts was a bully.
In the Student for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and Student for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina cases, Roberts wrote the opinion for himself and five other justices (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Barrett) declaring that the challenged affirmative action programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The majority overruled decisions by federal district courts in Massachusetts (for Harvard) and North Carolina (for UNC).
Those federal district judges conducted trials, heard witness testimony, and reviewed documentary evidence. They studied the case law governing the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal statute that prohibits discrimination in higher education.
The plaintiffs attacking the affirmative action programs is a non-profit group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). Here is its website:
https://studentsforfairadmissions.org/.
SFFA is a limited liability organization funded by Leonard Leo, a man referred
to as “the king of dark money” in this article that appeared in the Guardian
newspaper: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/30/supreme-court-leonard-leo-dark-money.
Let’s be clear. Federal district judges in Massachusetts and North Carolina ruled that SFFA failed to prove that either of the challenged affirmative action programs discriminated against any student, let alone “students.” Leonard Leo’s money did not produce evidence that persuaded federal district judges that the Harvard and UNC affirmative action programs discriminate.
But Leonard Leo and his right-wing dark money donors bet on getting their way by creating SFFA so it would file lawsuits that would be decided by SCOTUS. They counted on a cabal of bullies – John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanagh, and Amy Barrett – to outlaw the Harvard and UNC affirmative action programs based on their ideological disapproval of affirmative action, not because the evidence showed that anyone suffered discrimination at Harvard and UNC.
The majority opinion by Roberts and concurring opinions by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh do not identify any student whose application to Harvard, or the University of North Carolina was unfairly denied because of the challenged admission programs. Their decision was a blatant demonstration of judicial bullying.
That is what I sensed about Roberts when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. Roberts reminded me of Roger B. Taney, the chief justice who authored the notorious 1857 SCOTUS decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, when the Supreme Court held that because Scott was an African, he and other Africans – whether enslaved or free – had no rights under the Constitution of the United States, including the right to challenge his enslavement.
Like Roger Taney did in 1857, John Roberts uses judicial power now to uphold bigotry, supremacy, and privilege. He did it in 2013 when he led the Supreme Court to invalidate the “preclearance” requirement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shelby County v. Holder. He did it again last June when he led the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case.
The Students for Fair Admission decisions that Roberts announced to outlaw affirmative action admission programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina show that Obama and I were right when we opposed his confirmation.
John Roberts sides with and leads a cabal of bullies.
Comments
Post a Comment