Supreme Court justices’ robes aren’t red or blue | Opinion

puzzled headline writers and more than a few legal pundits. Not because of what the court held — that Alabama’s redistricting map had diluted the power of Black voters and thus likely violated the Voting Rights Act — but because of who wrote and joined the majority opinion.

Still, there is the troubling fact that so many court watchers would be surprised by a majority lineup that “went against type.” But we should not be surprised by such surprise. It reflects the sad reality that our nation’s highest court increasingly is seen as no more than another political branch, subject to the vagaries and influences of partisan politics.

Don’t miss an issue of our Opinion newsletter! Get it delivered each Wednesday right into your inbox by adding your email below and hitting"subscribe."It does not have to be this way. The Senate confirmed Antonin Scalia, an icon of the right, by a bipartisan vote of 98-0, and did much the same when confirming Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an icon of the left, by a vote of 96-3.

It’s hard to imagine returning to those days of bipartisanship, but we must try. For starters, we should resist the temptation to apply labels to judges whenever we explain their decisions, especially those with which we disagree. The Alabama redistricting case may make it easier for us to describe the court in institutional rather than ideological terms.

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Opinion | The Supreme Court just halted its steady march toward eviscerating voter protectionsThe Supreme Court, at least for the time being, dismissed Alabama’s radical argument that part of the Voting Rights Act is in tension with the Constitution. LevinsonJessica explains.
Source: MSNBC - 🏆 469. / 51 Read more »

Opinion: Why today's Supreme Court decision on voting rights is such a shockOpinion: The decision in Allen vs. Milligan is most significant for what the court didn’t do: It did not further weaken the law of voting rights as many expected.
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »

Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act ruling is no victory for democracyOpinion by By Melissa Murray and Steve Vladeck: The court's decision in the Alabama redistricting case must be considered in the broader context.
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »

Supreme Court: Alabama must draw new voting map favorable to Black residentsBreaking news: A divided Supreme Court on Thursday said the Alabama legislature should have created a second congressional district in which Black voters had a chance of electing a representative of their choice. The decision was a surprise from a court whose conservative majority had signaled it was suspicious of a Voting Rights Act precedent that Alabama said requires legislatures to prioritize race over traditional redistricting techniques.
Source: washingtonpost - 🏆 95. / 72 Read more »

Supreme Court rules Alabama’s new congressional map violates Voting Rights ActChief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s four liberals in affirming a lower court’s ruling that Alabama’s current congressional map “likely …
Source: nypost - 🏆 91. / 67 Read more »

Supreme Court ruling for Alabama congressional maps could set new precedent for TexasThere are ongoing lawsuits against Texas that challenges the congressional and state legislative district maps as discriminatory and excludes communities of color.
Source: abc13houston - 🏆 255. / 63 Read more »