Supreme Court Chief Justice CAUGHT in Voting SCANDAL | Unprecedented

Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently worked to undermine voting rights throughout his career, starting as a lawyer in the Reagan White House in 1982 where he tried to block the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. This long-standing opposition culminated in his court's effective destruction of Section 2 of the VRA, despite previous assurances that it would remain intact after Section 5 (pre-clearance) was struck down.

Lisa Graves states Roberts was 'against the Voting Rights Act since 1982' and 'lied to the American people' about Section 2's permanence. The court 'destroyed the last really significant enforcement provision of the voting rights act section two' on April 29th.

Roberts frequently assigns politically charged and unpopular opinions to Justice Samuel Alito, such as the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and the ruling that dismantled Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This strategy allows Roberts to maintain a public image of judicial modesty and impartiality, while Alito acts as the 'henchman' to advance the conservative agenda, taking the brunt of the political criticism.

Host Michael Popok notes Roberts 'hands the dagger to Alito' for 'dirty work' like Dobbs and the VRA. Graves adds Roberts 'wanted the sort of deniability' and 'Alito is happy to be the henchman' because both were 'Reagan revolutionaries'.

The Roberts Court selectively applies legal doctrines, such as the Purcell principle (which advises against changing election rules close to an election), to achieve partisan outcomes. In cases like Alabama's redistricting, the Court allowed 'racist maps' to be used in 2022 by citing Purcell, but later intervened or changed its stance when it favored Republican legislative efforts, demonstrating a lack of consistent judicial philosophy.

The host notes the Court 'pick and choose when they use these doctrines like the Purcell principle.' Graves details how the Court allowed Alabama to use illegal maps in 2022 due to proximity to the election, but later allowed new maps to be redrawn closer to another election, despite the same principle.

The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision to allow the continued nationwide sale of Mifepristone is seen as a political maneuver by Chief Justice Roberts to prevent abortion access from becoming a central issue in the upcoming election year. This aligns with his historical pattern of trying to avoid direct political fallout from highly contentious issues during election cycles, especially after the significant backlash seen in the 2022 midterms following the Dobbs decision.

Graves states, 'John Roberts does not want this issue to come up again during a midterm election' after 'red states like Kansas rebuke the Supreme Court' in 2022. She believes the Court 'pushed it off' to avoid an election-year decision.