Miles Mogulescu, Common Dreams

John Roberts might as well wear the robes of the Klan

George Wallace was sworn in as Governor of Alabama in 1963 and famously declared in his inauguration speech (written by a Ku Klux Klan leader) “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Two years later, Alabama state troopers violently broke up a nighttime voting rights march during which a police officer shot and killed young African American protester and Baptist deacon Jimmie Lee Jackson, who was unarmed and protecting his mother.

In response, civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King and John Lewis, organized a mass march from Selma to Montgomery over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in an attempt to deliver a civil rights and voting rights message to Gov. Wallace. It became known as “Bloody Sunday” as state troopers gassed and beat the protestors, including fracturing Lewis’ skull and sending 57 others to the hospital. Televised images of the brutal attack shocked the nation, directly leading to President Johnson’s push for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Numerous Americans, black and white, were injured and even died fighting for the Civil Rights Act. John Roberts and his five Republican Supreme Court colleagues effectively overturned the Civil Rights Act and essentially disenfranchised black voters.

George Wallace tried to disenfranchise black voters with violent state troopers. Roberts disenfranchised black voters with the stroke of a pen. It’s not hyperbole to say that while Roberts wears the black robes of a judge, he may as well wear the white robes of the Klan.

It’s not hyperbole to say that while Roberts wears the black robes of a judge, he may as well wear the white robes of the Klan.

In her dissent to Louisiana v. Callais in which the 6-member Republican majority of the Court effectively overturned Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history. It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality.” Kagan concluded, “ I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent.”

But the Court didn’t destroy the Civil Rights Act in a day. It was part of a lifelong mission by John Roberts to do so.

Starting as early as 1981, as a 26-year-old lawyer just three years out of Harvard Law School, Roberts began his campaign to undermine the Civil Rights Act. He got himself a job as Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General William French Smith. Congress was about to amend the Civil Rights Act to provide that state laws would be illegal if they had a racially discriminatory effect, without having to prove that they had a racially discriminatory intent—something almost impossible to prove.

Roberts zealously took on the assignment coming up with arguments against the Amendment. Roberts wrote over 25 memos opposing the Amendment. In one, he argued that the Civil Rights Act was “the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.”

Despite the efforts of Roberts and others in the Reagan administration, Congress passed the Amendment with overwhelming bipartisan support. Little did anyone imagine at the time that Roberts would become Chief Justice and the leader of right-wing Justices’ ultimately successful efforts to undermine the Civil Rights Act as he had initially set out to do as a young Justice Department official.

At his confirmation hearing, Roberts told the Senate “The existing Voting Rights Act, the constitutionality has been upheld and I don’t have any issue with that.” He was lying.

In 2013, Roberts got his first shot at dismantling the Civil Rights Act. In his 5-4 ruling in Shelby v. Holder, he overturned Section 5 of the Act , which required that states with a history of racist voter suppression pre-clear changes in election laws with the Justice Department to be sure they were not reinstituting racial suppression. He argued that it was no longer necessary since racism in America had diminished since the Act had been passed. In response, many states previously subject to preclearance rushed to enact new voter suppression laws.

In coming years, the Roberts Court further chipped away at the Voting Rights Act. But Roberts finally got his opportunity to make the rest of the Voting Rights Act a nullity when Louisiana v. Calais came before the Court this year. In a 6-3 opinion, which Roberts assigned to his anti-voting rights ally Justice Samuel Alito, the Court overruled the other crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act which had previously held that racially gerrymandered districts were illegal if they had racially discriminatory effect. Instead, racially gerrymandered districts would only be illegal if it can be proven that they have a racially discriminatory intent, a bar that is almost impossible to clear.

This was the argument that Roberts first made as a young Justice Department attorney back in 1982. As Chief Justice, he finally succeeded in his long campaign to revoke the Civil Rights Act.

Meanwhile, if a state can claim that it’s gerrymandering is motivated by ensuring that its political party wins, it’s totally cool with the Roberts Court. With the Court overturning both Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, it effectively repealed the entire Voting Rights Act that so many had fought and died for.

The very next day, Florida passed a redistricting law that would allow for new levels of gerrymandering designed to erase districts with large populations of black voters.

Roberts accomplished with a pen what George Wallace had tried to accomplish with violent state troopers.

Demented Trump could end the world. Here's how we can save it

Most Americans probably don’t know that the U.S. President has the absolute legal power to launch a potentially humanity-ending nuclear first strike against anyone anywhere at any moment without the permission or even advice of anyone at all — not Congress, not military leaders, not his cabinet, not anyone else.

An angry, impulsive or simply demented President could initiate the destruction of human life on earth with no legal constraints. If that doesn’t worry you, it should.

We came close to nuclear war during the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis under President Kennedy. President Reagan’s son Ron believes that the President suffered from dementia during the final year of his term. Many question whether President Biden was fully mentally competent during the last months of his term.

But Donald Trump’s diminished mental state increases the danger he might impulsively order a civilization-ending nuclear strike all by himself. He appears to have moved from just being a narcissistic, power hungry, ignorant bully to having dementia.

Could Trump get so angry at another world leader like the Prime Minister of Norway or Switzerland that he would order not just the annexation of Greenland or high tariffs on Swiss Chocolate but a nuclear strike? I don’t know how likely that is, even for Trump, but it’s no longer unthinkable.

The unilateral power for any President to launch a nuclear first strike must be legally curtailed and the power to remove a mentally disabled President from office must be strengthened. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should want one person alone to have to power to order the destruction of humanity.

Outlaw a nuclear first strike

Congress must pass a bill outlawing the first use of nuclear weapons. Sen. Ed Markey (D-MS) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) have introduced the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act multiple times since 2017, most recently in January 2025 with 26 co-sponsors in the House and seven in the Senate. The bill was referred to committee, where no discussion or hearings have been held.

A “No First Use” statute could be short and sweet:

“(a) It shall be the policy of the United States that nuclear weapons may only be used in direct retaliation for a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. (b) The President shall not authorize, order, or direct the non-retaliatory use of nuclear weapons. (c) No member of the Armed Forces shall execute, implement, or otherwise carry out an order for such use.”

This is something both parties should support. Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, you should not want one person alone to launch a civilization-ending nuclear war.

Make the 25th Amendment practical

For most of American history, there was no constitutional means to remove a mentally or physically disabled President other than the high bar of impeachment. Following President Kennedy’s assassination, the 25th Amendment was enacted to set up a constitutional procedure to transfer presidential powers.

Under Section 4, the President may be removed and replaced by the Vice President if the President cannot perform his duties for any reason including mental incapacity such as cognitive or psychological impairment.

If the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet send a written declaration to Congress that the President cannot discharge his duties, the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President.

If the President disagrees in writing, the Cabinet and Vice President have 4 days to respond. If within 21 days two-thirds of both the Senate and House approves, the Vice President remains President. If not, the original President is restored to office.

But the 25th Amendment is badly flawed. Among other things, the cabinet members have been appointed by the President and are unlikely to revoke his powers. And if they were to consider it, the President could simply fire them before they voted.

That’s why the drafters of the 25th Amendment included an alternative mechanism: Congress may pass a law designating another body other than the Cabinet to determine the President’s fitness for office

In 2020, to implement the intent of the 25th Amendment, the House passed “The Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of Office Act,” authored by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). The bill did not target any specific President. It would have set up a 17-member bipartisan panel of physicians and former executive branch officers to evaluate the President’s fitness for office. To prevent partisanship, half the members would be appointed by Republicans and half by Democrats. While it passed the House, the bill did not pass the Senate.

Under present circumstances, it’s time to modernize and enact the bill. The republic should not have to improvise during a Presidential medical emergency or cognitive decline.

Conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote several years ago that:

“From the perspective of the Republican leadership’s duty to their country, and indeed to the world that our imperium bestrides, leaving a man this witless and unmastered in an office with these powers and responsibilities is an act of gross negligence, which no objective on the near-term political horizon seems remotely significant enough to justify.”

Regardless of your partisan leanings, it’s time to act to limit the President’s unilateral power to launch a nuclear first strike and to use the 25th Amendment to remove a mentally impaired President.

In that event, J.D. Vance would become President, which shouldn’t bother Republicans. And for Democrats, it would still be better than allowing a mentally declining Trump to remain in power, even if Vance’s values are as reactionary as Trump’s.

And even if it doesn’t pass, it would put the issue of the President’s mental health and the danger of a unilateral nuclear first strike front and center.

Outlawing the President’s unilateral first nuclear strike right could even become one of the demands of a contemplated general strike.

This man wants to steal your vote — and cement GOP minority control

America is at war over partisan gerrymandering. The Republican-controlled Texas legislature has just gerrymandered voting districts to create five more safe Republican US House seats, as demanded by Donald Trump.

Then Missouri Republicans were ordered by Trump to enact a gerrymander to increase the states’ disproportionate Republican minority from 6-2 to 7-1 by cutting Democratic-leaning Kansas City districts down the middle. Now Vice President JD Vance is urging Indiana Republicans to gerrymander the only two remaining Democratic House districts out of existence.

In response, California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a ballot measure that would temporarily suspend California’s independent redistricting commission until 2030 and let the Democratic legislature redistrict Republicans out of five seats to match what Republicans have done in Texas.

A large majority of voters nationally don’t think partisan gerrymandering should be legal. According to a recent YouGov poll, 69 percent of Americans think partisan gerrymandering should be illegal and only 9 percent think it should be legal.

Chief Justice John Roberts (and all of his Republican colleagues on the Supreme Court) disagree with this vast majority of Americans. In 2019, Roberts’ 5-4 majority opinion in Rucho v Common Cause (the chief joined by the four other Republicans on the Court) held that federal courts do not have the constitutional power to prevent partisan gerrymandering and restored blatantly partisan gerrymanders in North Carolina and Maryland.

Since Roberts’ decision, partisan gerrymandering has exploded. According to Michael Li of the Brennan Center, partisan gerrymandering has given Republicans 16 extra seats in the House. Without that, Democrats would have a House majority and Republicans would not have been able to pass the so-called “big beautiful bill” which has led to a government shutdown.

As the Brennan Center states, “Gerrymandering decided House control.”

Roberts’ opinion conceded that partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic institutions” and “leads to results that reasonably seem unjust.” But Roberts then invented a procedural technicality to bar federal courts from doing anything about it or to uphold the Constitutional principle of “one person, one vote.”

Roberts claimed that partisan gerrymandering is a so-called “political question” that federal courts have no right to answer and must be left to the states.

Of course, when one party controls the state legislature, they have every incentive to draw voting districts to guarantee they never lose political power, no matter what the view of the voters is. Voters don’t get to pick their own legislators. Instead, legislators get to pick their voters.

In her dissent in Rucho — joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer —Justice Eleanor Kagan wrote:

"For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because [Roberts] thinks the task is beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the right participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance their political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy ... enabl[ing] politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters' preferences ... They encouraged a politics of polarization and disfunction."

Is it any wonder that a New York Times/Siena poll taken last week found that only 33 percent of voters believe that America’s political system can still address the nation’s problems, while 64 percent believe the political system is too politically divided to solve the nation’s problems?

As former Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Lisa Graves argues in a new book, “[I]n the last 20 years the US Supreme Court has radically curtailed voting rights, undermined anti-corruption measures, encouraged extreme political gerrymandering, restricted the regulation of guns, and obliterated the constitutional right to control one’s reproductive choices. This transformation was orchestrated by a billionaire-backed reactionary political movement, whose interests Chief Justice John Roberts has been all too willing to serve.”

Citizens have no power to overturn a US Supreme Court decision. However, California citizens have the ability to equalize Texas Republicans’ gerrymander of five House seats.

On Nov. 4, they can pass Proposition 50 which lets the state legislature temporarily draw new congressional district maps through 2030, at which point the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission would resume control of redistricting, and supports nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.

It won’t completely block Roberts’ 20-year project to undermine democracy and judicially enact the increasingly MAGA Republican agenda. (It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to call it a “judicial coup”.)

Indeed, last week, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in a case where it appears that Roberts will lead the Republican majority to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which protects the right of Black voters to have electoral representation. Such a ruling could likely flip as many as 19 House seats from Democratic to Republican, cementing a Republican House majority for the foreseeable future, regardless of the will of the voters.

Passing Proposition 50 is one thing Californians can do to fight back against Justice Roberts’ undemocratic judicial campaign, which has helped enable Trump’s authoritarianism. Mail-in ballots have already been sent out so California voters can cast “Yes” votes for Proposition 50 from now until Nov. 4.

Beyond that, thanks to John Roberts and his Republican colleagues on SCOTUS, other blue states will have to be brought into the gerrymander wars and enact their own partisan gerrymanders, to balance Republican gerrymanders to the extent possible.