My letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. His address is enclosed. You should write him too!

[JustKay]

Chief Justice John Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

I am writing in response to the Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which I believe will stand as a defining—and deeply troubling—moment in your tenure.

By narrowing the practical reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Court has made it significantly harder to challenge maps that dilute minority voting power. Requiring proof of intent rather than confronting discriminatory effects does not neutralize injustice—it insulates it. As this Court has demonstrated, history has repeatedly shown that discrimination rarely announces itself openly, and legal standards that depend on proving intent risk rendering civil rights protections hollow.

The purpose of the Voting Rights Act was not to create a race-neutral abstraction, but to remedy specific, well-documented patterns of disenfranchisement. Treating all groups as equally vulnerable to vote dilution disregards the very history the law was designed to confront.

The Court has long claimed to be guided by precedent, restraint, and fidelity to the Constitution. This decision calls those commitments into question. When legal reasoning produces outcomes that predictably and intentionally weaken the political voice of historically marginalized communities, it is reasonable to ask whether the Court is fulfilling its role as a guardian of equal protection.

You are well aware that the legitimacy of the Court rests not only on its authority, but on public confidence that its decisions are grounded in principle rather than outcome-driven reasoning. Decisions like this erode that confidence.

This decision places the Court in the role of validating systemic inequality in American elections. History will remember that.

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Excellent letter.

[Ninga]

2. Oh my. What a well stated and powerful letter. I am not able to articulate as well. I would happily though, undersign

your next letter. Great job!

[Fil1957]

3. Great letter, bad recipient. I'll bet Roberts knows or has heard every one of your points. He may even agree with some

of them.

The problem is, he just doesn't give a rat's ass about this country.

[JustKay]

4. Agreed!

And I know he'll probably never read it, and he certainly doesn't care, but that will not stop me from using my voice and pushing back.

[Fil1957]

5. Good on you!

[popsdenver]

6. In reality........

Obviously.......Roberts, nor any of the other Republican Justices give a crap about anything other than taking care of the Corporations that they serve...............

[JustKay]

10. I agree, but....

It will not stop me from advocating for social justice. With my last breath!

[popsdenver]

12. No question,

I will also...........

[City Lights]

7. Well done!

[Martin Eden]

8. "Requiring proof of intent rather than confronting discriminatory effects does not neutralize injustice--it insulates it.

Roberts and his five accomplices know this. As you noted later in your very well written logical letter, their ruling was driven by outcome.

I have often pondered what future historians will write about this court, this Congress, and this POtuS. My greatest fear is that fascism will prevail, and the true history of these times will be flushed down an Orwellian memory hole.

[Seinan Sensei]

22. "POtuS"

Perfect!
I’ll be using this 👍

[ihaveaquestion]

9. Lovely letter. Very well argued and convincing.

Unfortunately, I'm sure it's nothing he hasn't heard before and isn't likely to make an impression. He and his ilk have canned, and no doubt well-reasoned in his mind, responses to every argument you make. These are not fair-minded people. It's hard for us to imagine that a supreme court judge as affable as Roberts is, would be unreasonable, but he is. There's a barrier in his mind which nothing crosses, which was probably set in childhood by a grandfather or uncle, and which tells him that his people deserve what they have and where they are, and whatever station he rises to in life, he must do his best to protect them and theirs.

[perdita9]

11. Jim Crow, 2.0

John Roberts will be remembered as an active participant in trying to destroy American democracy

[lastlib]

13. I would change the last sentence:

"That will be YOUR legacy." Let him know HE owns it.

Fantastic as is, though.

It won't penetrate his thick ideological skull, but that isn't your fault, it's his.

[mountain grammy]

14. John Roberts is a white supremacist and won't care

but I love your letter and will send something similar myself.. thank you for providing a guide.

I think we're in for some dark times with this court. I'm scared for friends who live on the edge and for all of us.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. This letter should be copied and sent to any law school and/or university

that will have Roberts speak at their commencement.

And if that should fail, I believe the appropriate response of the graduates should be to either stand and turn their backs on Roberts or to just leave when he begins to speak.

[vapor2]

16. Damn, wish I could write this well. Great letter

and his legacy will surely suck

[70sEraVet]

17. You should have taped a $20 bill to the bottom of the letter

It's an excellent letter. But it's GREEN that closes the argument with these 6justices!

[suilebhan]

18. This is the new Taney Court

You've written an excellent letter, and it's greatly appreciated. I think this court has blundered badly with this new sequel. "Dred Scott 2: Alito Boogaloo."

[Joinfortmill]

19. Wow. Impressive.

[FadedMullet]

20. Really well done. I shall try to limit how much of it I unintentionally plagaize as I write him tonight.

[tavernier]

21. He has broken his oath to his country on many occasions.

A letter won’t help because he has long been made blind. I’m afraid that only our voices and our votes can save us now. And a great deal of prayer.

[stage left]

23. Brilliant Letter!

[aggiesal]

24. Excellent letter. Roberts will burn it to heat his office. n/t

[dlk]

25. Wonderful letter, however, Roberts is a closet zealot and does not care

He (and his wife) are too busy lining their pockets.

[Ruby the Liberal]

26. Incredibly succinct

Thank you for sharing that.

[MineralMan]

27. Writing letters like that is a good exercise.

Sadly, the odds of them being read by the person addressed are very long indeed. Still, writing it helped you organize our thoughts and share them with us. That's a good thing, no question!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

28. MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive

Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.

Why John Roberts’ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is clearly aware of public perceptions related to the high court, though he apparently wants Americans to see him and fellow justices as above the political fray. The Associated Press reported on his latest public remarks:

“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” he said. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”

His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.

As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not “part of the political process … and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.”.....

Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as “political actors”? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.

But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as “political actors” is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts’ remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.”....

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, “Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy.” Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.

The tarnishing of the Supreme Court — its credibility, its integrity and its reputation — has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, that’s their right, but if they want to help restore the institution’s standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Court’s problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.

Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

29. Clyburn: "I think Justice Roberts is gonna take his place alongside some other justices, like Taney

Clyburn: "I think Justice Roberts is gonna take his place alongside some other justices, like Taney who gave us the Dred Scott decision"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-05-10T13:41:45.922Z

Twins. History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.

— Mark Sumner 🌒 (@devilstower.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:42:14.146Z

6 years ago, I wrote that John Roberts, who craves to be ranked w J Marshall (or CE Hughes or E Warren) as greatest, institutionalist, consensus-building Chief Justice..
...would instead challenge Roger "Dred Scott" Taney as worst + most partisan-hack chief.

Now, no contest. Roberts beats Taney.

— James Fallows (@jfallows.bsky.social) 2026-05-10T16:20:34.318Z

Chief Justice Roberts has spent his entire career trying to destroy the Voting Rights Act. He’s been trying to stop Black voting power since he worked for Reagan’s DOJ.
History will remember him as an enemy of civil rights for all Americans.
Just like CJ Taney, another white supremacist.

— @bells110.bsky.social 2026-05-07T21:55:46.439Z

After 'Shelby County' 13 years ago, I wrote that John Roberts was on track to displace Roger 'Dred Scott' Taney as the Chief Justice who would live in infamy.

It's no contest any more.

Alito is a worse partisan hack, but he never pretended to be anything else. Roberts wanted to be "respected."

— James Fallows (@jfallows.bsky.social) 2026-05-02T16:58:46.980Z