Kennedy Understood, But Chief Justice Roberts Has No Clue

The following paragraph is from an article on Chief Justice John Roberts, entitled "Roberts Says High Court Not About 'Political Preferences,'" subtitled "Chief Justice Says Separation of Powers Is Important," by Jan Crawford Greenburg, ABC News.

Notice how this is the right wing position, paraphrased, "Judges should not legislate from the bench," yet he claims that his court should have no political preferences.

Ref:http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/SupremeCourt/story?id=2651063&page=1

"The only reason, the reason I'm protected from those political pressures is because I'm supposed to make a decision based on the law," he said. "And so I don't think it would be a good idea to turn all the hard issues over to the courts. Those hard issues belong in Congress, they belong in the executive branch. Courts have the responsibility to make sure that those branches abide by the legal limits of the Constitution,(CJJR)"

How can one advocate the right wing political position and at the same time claim that the court should have no political preferences?

On the other hand, one might ask, is that not the correct position to have?

The answer is this: In a vacuum, "yes."

In a vacuum, Congress should be the one to handle the tough issues. But what happens if it doesn't. How long must a people suffer before someone comes to the rescue?

Should a neighbor not feed a starving child, just because a parent should do that?

Similarly, should the Supreme Court not handle brutish oppression, just because an irresponsible, recalcitrant Congress should do that, but has refused to act, for over 3 centuries?

If Congress was not going to act, then who was?

If the mayor or the governor was not going to do it, then who was?

The Supreme Court stepped forward under Earl Warren and answered the call against school segregation and discrimination in general; something congress refused to do.

It is a known fact that black people had no rights during slavery, had no civil rights for 100 years after that, until 1964, and no voting rights until 1965. In many jurisdictions, legislators would not act. Lower court judges would not act. The executive branch, mayors, governors would not act.

So as a last resort, the Black community turned to the Supreme Court for redress.

The Court granted us school desegregation, struck down housing discrimination, etc in the '50s and '60s. It was during this period that the Court got its name "judges legislating from the bench."

Conservatives always do that. They don't do anything to help, but then cast aspersions on the remedy; to give it a bad name.

Chief Justice Roberts appears to have no clue about the history that these conditions existed.
***

President Kennedy on the other hand knew that these conditions existed: "in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law."

Kennedy too, wanted the congress to act; but the difference is Kennedy never did rule out the Courts in these matters. The conservatives do rule out the courts.

"But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street (JFK)."

Justice Roberts should have said, "our systems were unfair to blacks in a prior era, therefore as a last resort, Blacks had to turn to the Courts for remedy. The Courts had to take on added responsibilities. Now, however, it is time to move these issues back to Congress."

That is a fairer response informed by history.