'Devastating' Supreme Court revelations prove 'coward' John Roberts bows down to MAGA

Of the six GOP appointees who now comprise two-thirds of the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts is often described by legal analysts as the most nuanced. But he isn't nearly as much of a wild card as former Justice Anthony Kennedy, a right-wing libertarian Ronald Reagan appointee who sided with liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg over Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in cases related to gay rights or abortion. The Religious Right was furious with Kennedy for his votes in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Kennedy, however, drew vehement criticism from liberals and progressives for authoring the majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010.In an article published on April 22, Salon's Amanda Marcotte offers a scathing analysis of Roberts' work on the High Court. And she emphasizes that his record is much more MAGA-friendly than his defenders describe him as being."As chief justice, Roberts likes to present himself as a sober-minded intellectual who couldn't be more different than the blathering snake oil salesman in the White House," Marcotte explains. "But (a) New York Times investigation, which is based on leaked memos, reveals that Roberts, like Trump, lacks any real interest in fostering fair-minded debate." The Times article that Marcotte references was written by reporters Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak and published on April 18. And according to Marcotte, their reporting paints a troubling picture of Roberts' use of the High Court's "shadow docket.""A devastating recent report from the New York Times has exposed how the chief justice led the way to the escalating abuse of the shadow docket, a Court power once reserved for emergencies but that is now the primary tool of the institution’s conservative justices to evade having to debate or even explain their decisions in a lengthy and reasoned ruling available for all to examine," Marcotte argues. "While this revelation is just the latest in a series of scandals involving the Court, it ties into a larger pattern that has animated and defined the MAGA movement from its very beginning: a cowardly aversion to robustly debating ideas."Marcotte adds, "The term 'shadow docket' itself sounds like wonky legalese, but in practice, it's quite simple. The Court has the power, which has traditionally (been) reserved for emergency situations, to issue temporary orders while the case itself awaits final judgment."The High Court, Marcotte stresses, should be a place of "rigorous debate" — something Roberts is discouraging."The granting of shadow docket requests were once exceedingly rare and granted only for cases under an imminent deadline, such an inmate on death row needing a stay of execution to give his lawyers time to finish an appeal," the Salon journalist writes. "But with Donald Trump in office, the conservative Court is using the shadow docket as a back door to issue rulings upholding the administration's unpopular — and often legally questionable — policies, while having to avoid explaining themselves to the public…. There are many theories swirling around for why they have increasingly chosen to abandon their basic duty to legal transparency. And the likeliest one is also the simplest: They're cowards…. Rather than endure the shame of public scorn — which would still make no material difference to their levels of power— the justices would rather hide their views."Marcotte adds, "Though they may occupy the highest spot on the judicial bench, the Court's conservative members have revealed that, with these gutless actions, they are not much different than the rest of MAGA."