General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. His address is enclosed. You should write him too!
Chief Justice John Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
I am writing in response to the Courts decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which I believe will stand as a definingand deeply troublingmoment in your tenure.
By narrowing the practical reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court has made it significantly harder to challenge maps that dilute minority voting power. Requiring proof of intent rather than confronting discriminatory effects does not neutralize injusticeit insulates it. As this Court has demonstrated, history has repeatedly shown that discrimination rarely announces itself openly, and legal standards that depend on proving intent risk rendering civil rights protections hollow.
The purpose of the Voting Rights Act was not to create a race-neutral abstraction, but to remedy specific, well-documented patterns of disenfranchisement. Treating all groups as equally vulnerable to vote dilution disregards the very history the law was designed to confront.
The Court has long claimed to be guided by precedent, restraint, and fidelity to the Constitution. This decision calls those commitments into question. When legal reasoning produces outcomes that predictably and intentionally weaken the political voice of historically marginalized communities, it is reasonable to ask whether the Court is fulfilling its role as a guardian of equal protection.
You are well aware that the legitimacy of the Court rests not only on its authority, but on public confidence that its decisions are grounded in principle rather than outcome-driven reasoning. Decisions like this erode that confidence.
This decision places the Court in the role of validating systemic inequality in American elections. History will remember that.
sinkingfeeling
(57,974 posts)Ninga
(9,027 posts)your next letter. Great job!
Fil1957
(831 posts)of them.
The problem is, he just doesn't give a rat's ass about this country.
And I know he'll probably never read it, and he certainly doesn't care, but that will not stop me from using my voice and pushing back.
popsdenver
(2,544 posts)Obviously.......Roberts, nor any of the other Republican Justices give a crap about anything other than taking care of the Corporations that they serve...............
JustKay
(165 posts)It will not stop me from advocating for social justice. With my last breath!
popsdenver
(2,544 posts)I will also...........
City Lights
(26,006 posts)Martin Eden
(15,843 posts)Roberts and his five accomplices know this. As you noted later in your very well written logical letter, their ruling was driven by outcome.
I have often pondered what future historians will write about this court, this Congress, and this POtuS. My greatest fear is that fascism will prevail, and the true history of these times will be flushed down an Orwellian memory hole.
Seinan Sensei
(1,622 posts)Perfect!
Ill be using this 👍
ihaveaquestion
(4,730 posts)Unfortunately, I'm sure it's nothing he hasn't heard before and isn't likely to make an impression. He and his ilk have canned, and no doubt well-reasoned in his mind, responses to every argument you make. These are not fair-minded people. It's hard for us to imagine that a supreme court judge as affable as Roberts is, would be unreasonable, but he is. There's a barrier in his mind which nothing crosses, which was probably set in childhood by a grandfather or uncle, and which tells him that his people deserve what they have and where they are, and whatever station he rises to in life, he must do his best to protect them and theirs.
perdita9
(1,364 posts)John Roberts will be remembered as an active participant in trying to destroy American democracy
lastlib
(28,534 posts)"That will be YOUR legacy." Let him know HE owns it.
Fantastic as is, though.
It won't penetrate his thick ideological skull, but that isn't your fault, it's his.
mountain grammy
(29,163 posts)but I love your letter and will send something similar myself.. thank you for providing a guide.
I think we're in for some dark times with this court. I'm scared for friends who live on the edge and for all of us.
no_hypocrisy
(55,273 posts)that will have Roberts speak at their commencement.
And if that should fail, I believe the appropriate response of the graduates should be to either stand and turn their backs on Roberts or to just leave when he begins to speak.
vapor2
(4,835 posts)and his legacy will surely suck
70sEraVet
(5,593 posts)It's an excellent letter. But it's GREEN that closes the argument with these 6justices!
suilebhan
(16 posts)You've written an excellent letter, and it's greatly appreciated. I think this court has blundered badly with this new sequel. "Dred Scott 2: Alito Boogaloo."
Joinfortmill
(21,575 posts)FadedMullet
(1,003 posts)tavernier
(14,497 posts)A letter wont help because he has long been made blind. Im afraid that only our voices and our votes can save us now. And a great deal of prayer.
stage left
(3,342 posts)aggiesal
(10,895 posts)dlk
(13,318 posts)He (and his wife) are too busy lining their pockets.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,699 posts)Thank you for sharing that.
MineralMan
(151,495 posts)Sadly, the odds of them being read by the person addressed are very long indeed. Still, writing it helped you organize our thoughts and share them with us. That's a good thing, no question!
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.
Why John Robertsâ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive
I think, at a very basic level, people think were making policy decisions, were saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides, he said. I think they view us as purely political actors, which I dont think is an accurate understanding of what we do.
His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.
As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not part of the political process and Im not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate......
Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as political actors? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.
But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as political actors is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.....
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy. Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.
The tarnishing of the Supreme Court its credibility, its integrity and its reputation has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, thats their right, but if they want to help restore the institutions standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Courts problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.
Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.