John Roberts on Government Reform
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. George W. Bush 2005)
2006: TX redistricting didn't violate Voting Rights Act
In "LULAC v. Perry", a case challenging how Texas had drawn the lines for congressional districts, Roberts wrote [in dissent], "It's a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." This simple sentence acknowledged the reality that we are using the very
tools we created for the purpose of ending racial discrimination to perpetuate it.
In that 2006 case, the Supreme Court held that only one of the congressional districts Texas had drawn was in violation of the Voting Rights Act. That was the district
held then by Henry Bonilla, a Hispanic Republican. The Court stunningly ruled that while the district was drawn to be "majority minority," it was not Hispanic ENOUGH for Hispanics to elect their "candidate of choice." It was this flawed reasoning that
caused the chief justice to query during arguments of the plaintiff's attorney, "What number of minority voters just right to make a district qualify as 'Hispanic-opportunity,' rather than one masquerading as such?" She did not have a good answer.
Source: Fed Up!, by Gov. Rick Perry, p.110-111
, Nov 15, 2010
Campaign finance reform should not limit political spending
Kagan has already distinguished herself as an aggressive advocate for campaign finance reform. The first case Kagan argued as solicitor general was Citizens United v. Federal Elections Committee. It was one of the cases Obama referenced when he
said, "In a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens." In one fell swoop, the Court upended decades of campaign finance laws that kept corporations and their unlimited financial resources out
of the political process. Kagan argued that if Roberts and the other conservative justices had their way, which they ultimately did, the voice of the ordinary American would simply be overpowered by the deep pockets of corporate America.
This issue is not going away anytime soon. In one way or another, it will be before the Court in the coming years and the next justice will play a critical role in the outcome.
Source: Josh Gottheimer in US News & World Report, "5 Reasons"
, Apr 9, 2010
Disabled people can sue government for discrimination
In the July 2004 decision Barbour v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Roberts joined Merrick Garland -- a Clinton appointee --
in deciding that sovereign immunity did not bar a D.C employee with bipolar disorder from suing the transit agency under federal laws barring discrimination against the disabled. Conservative Sentelle dissented.
Source: Tony Mauro, Legal Times
, Feb 22, 2005
Ok to extend time limit to sue for lawyerís malpractice
Roberts wrote the courtís opinion in BOW JUNG v. MUNDY, HOLT & MANCE, P.C.
Bow Jung sued his own attorneys, and the district court granted summary judgment for the attorneys, because Bow Jung-after learning of the conflict of interest-waited beyond
the three-year limitations period for malpractice actions before filing suit.
Mother Jung died in Jan. 1995 survived by Bow Jung and May Jung. Mayís husband Robinson worked as a law clerk, and drafted multiple versions of Mother Jungís will,
[including naming Bow as her son and as heir]. but Mother Jung never signed the will and died intestate.
In Aug. 1995, May challenged her brotherís heirship [because he had no birth certificate from his birthplace in China]. That dispute finally
ended in Dec. 1999, when DNA testing of Mother Jungís exhumed body proved Bow was her natural son.
We reverse the district court [and find in favor of Bow Jung on grounds that the ongoing legal action extended beyond the three-year period].
Source: FindLaw case 03-7092, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
, Jun 25, 2004
The Federal Government enjoys sovereign immunity
We do have a Federal System, that States have powers and responsibilities, and the Federal Government does as well. Certainly, under the Supremacy Clause, the legislation that you enact is the supreme law of the land, consistent with the Constitution.
There is no sovereign immunity clause in the Constitution. On the other hand, the courtís cases have been fairly consistent that the Federal Government enjoys sovereign immunity. This body has done much over the years to waive that-the Federal Tort
Claims Act, a whole variety of things. But that basic recognition of Federal sovereign immunity has always held firm, and I think it is hard to explain to State Government why do they have it and we donít, and if we had it at the time of the founding,
when did we give it up? The Supreme Court has given some answers. Well, part of it you gave up in the 14th Amendment, in Section 5. But I do appreciate that it is a difficult area because youíre not dealing with a textual provision in the Constitution.
Source: Hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate
, Jan 29, 2003
Public campaign finance can't be based on opponent spending.
Justice Roberts wrote the Court's decision on AZ FREEDOM CLUB PAC v. BENNETT on Jun 27, 2011:
An Arizona public campaign financing law allowed a person who agreed to the restrictions of a publicly financed campaign to receive an initial allotment from the state. That initial allotment was increased when the spending of a privately financed opponent together with the spending of any independent group exceeded that initial allotment. The public funds to match opponent expenditures topped out at two times the initial allotment.
HELD: Delivered by Roberts; joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas & AlitoArizona's public financing law places a burden on privately financed candidates. If privately financed candidates spend money above a certain level, they necessarily entitle their publicly financed opponents to greater funding. Their First Amendment right to free speech in a political matter--which includes spending money on their campaigns--is inhibited. Independent groups do not qualify for public financing at all, but their spending still may lead to a funding
increase for the candidates the independent groups oppose. Leveling the playing is not a compelling state interest justifying a burden on a First Amendment right, nor is combating corruption. Arizona would be free to give the maximum amount to all public candidates, but that does not justify inhibiting the free speech of candidates and independent groups.
DISSENT: Kagan dissents; joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and SotomayorThe First Amendment's core purpose is to foster a political system full of robust discussion and debate. Arizona's public campaign finance did not restrict speech, it increased speech through public subsidy with the goal of decreasing the corruption of both quid pro quo campaign payments made in exchange for official acts or an office seeker feeling beholden to his great financial supporters. Any burden on free speech, the burden could hardly be more substantial than what the Court announces would be legal: a larger, up-front allotment to a public candida
Source: Supreme Court case 11-AZ-PAC argued on Mar 28, 2011
Page last updated: Apr 29, 2013