Chief Justice John Roberts exercises the power that he longs for As the Supreme Court entered its last week, the approaching question was whether the leader of the country's judiciary would take care of his conservative instincts or moderate to protect the institutional interests of the court in these insane political times. He did both. But where his views could have the most significance, it was in the Thursday decision that stifles all federal challenges to extreme guerrilla action. He joined the four other Conservatives appointed by the Republicans on the bench. During a session that began in October, Roberts sometimes struck his usual conservatism. He united with liberals at key moments, such as in the census, but also preserving precedents for the regulator and preventing the entry into force of a restrictive abortion law in Louisiana. He wrote opinions that tried to minimize the differences between the right and the left. He wanted to achieve consensus and aversion to politics. Facing the bench, he even publicly criticized President Donald Trump. Still, even when in the partisan disagreements between Maryland and North Carolina that he claims to keep the judges out of politics, he may have played right in it. "Federal judges have no license to redistribute political power between the two parties," Roberts said on Thursday, "without any credible guarantee in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions." This prompted justice, Elena Kagan, to which three more of the court on the left, to declare in the darkness from the bench in the courtroom: "Of all time, to abandon the duty of the court to declare the law, it was not The practices that have been brought about in these cases endanger our system of government. The political party, which controlling a state house and attracting the constituencies, retaining its power, to a great extent benefiting Republicans across the country RELATED: "The Chief:" John Roberts's journey from a "sober cat" to the top of American law of this case of prostitution, became possible with the fifth voice of justice Brett Kwanavou, who managed to retire from justice Anthony Kennedy, the annual mandate created several blockbuster. Roberts, with Kavanaugh working in the League from time to time, tried to reduce the ideological differences between nine. The court adjourned large cases of abortion rights, immigration and LGBT rights. One term offers a limited portrait. And Roberts and Cavana know well that they have many years, perhaps decades ahead. The Chief Justice is now fully responsible for the restored Conservative Court, where he is the most important judge. The replacement of Kennedy last year by the more conservative Cavana took Roberts into the ideological center of the court. This, along with the devastation of the violent hearings of Cavana, has added weight to the man who has been the chairman of the Central Assembly since he was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. Several times in the past few months, Roberts, now 64, made public statements stating that the judges were not politicians in black robes. "We do not sit on the opposite sides of the path, we are not in separate rooms, we serve no party or interest, we serve a nation," he said in Minneapolis in October. In November, he issued a remarkable statement in response to Tramp's complaint of a liberal judge's decision against the administration. "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who do their best to make equal rights to those who appear to them." In February in Nashville, he added, "We are not just part of the political process, people must know that we are not making politics, they must know that we are doing something different, we apply the law." In their own voices and opinions Roberts seems to have wanted to prove this, and he has separated himself from his conservative brothers and has joined several liberal judges in the early, gradual cases of the right to abortion to asylum policy, and he tried to overcome differences wherever he would "I write separately to suppose that in a distance (Elena Kagan) and Justice (Neale) Gorsuch is not as big as it might have appeared initially, "Roberts wrote in Kisor's case against Willy on Wednesday, Kennedy's absence was felt as the court took a firm stand on complaints of convicted prisoners and rejected the precedent that allowed the lower federal judges to look at extreme guerrillas, old precedents that have been in their sight for years, which has led the liberals to ask in which cases the court will rejection follows tions. Liberal Justice Steven Breyer, for example, even hinted at the possible reversal of Rowe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision, which makes abortion lawful throughout the country at some point on the road.
Whether Roberts will go so far and turn the the rights of abortion remains a guessing game, and Roberts moves in critical cases. The desperation of the liberal judges in the courtroom on Thursday was tangible. Kagan expressed sorrow, and the rest seemed disappointed and discouraged.
But a few minutes later, Roberts worried his fellow Conservatives by announcing his vote against the Census Administration. Critics argue that the issue of citizenship is an attempt to intimidate non-Roma and Latin American households and will lead to a decline in response rates and under-representation of minorities.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest justice in the right wing, writes the main disagreement in this case. He said Roberts' decision for the majority reflects the "storm of suspicion and mistrust that seems to be typical of modern discourse."
With a possible nod of a still controversial court ruling in 2000 in Bush v. Gore, Thomas concludes: Today's decision is a departure from the traditional principles of administrative law, hoping it is a diversion ̵