Roberts Court

WASHINGTON - Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts Jr.considers it an insult when he hears it said that he and the justices are playing politics. He has always insisted his sole duty was to decide the law, not to pick the political winners. Until this week, however, not many were inclined to believe him. Those on the left - and the right - were convinced they could expect Roberts to be a reliable vote on the conservative side. But no more. The chief justice took control of two of the biggest politically charged cases in a decade, involving the Affordable Care Act and Arizona's immigration law, and he fashioned careful, lawyerly rulings that resulted in victories for the Obama administration.

As the Supreme Court begins its 2012 term Monday, two cases loom ominously large for civil rights advocates who fear that the Roberts court is itching to prematurely declare victory in the long legal war against racial discrimination. One, which the court is expected to accept for review although it hasn't done so yet, involves a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The other concerns a program at the University of Texas that allows race to be considered in admissions decisions.

Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court had more than its share of surprising opinions and unexpected rulings this year beyond the pair of victories for the Obama administration in the healthcare and immigration cases. The justices ruled for the criminal defendants in this term's most important cases on crime and punishment. That alone is a rarity for a court that more often leans to the right. Overall, however, the decisions this year did not reflect a true ideological shift at the high court.

Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court had more than its share of surprising opinions and unexpected rulings this year beyond the pair of victories for the Obama administration in the healthcare and immigration cases. The justices ruled for the criminal defendants in this term's most important cases on crime and punishment. That alone is a rarity for a court that more often leans to the right. Overall, however, the decisions this year did not reflect a true ideological shift at the high court.

As the Supreme Court begins its 2012 term Monday, two cases loom ominously large for civil rights advocates who fear that the Roberts court is itching to prematurely declare victory in the long legal war against racial discrimination. One, which the court is expected to accept for review although it hasn't done so yet, involves a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The other concerns a program at the University of Texas that allows race to be considered in admissions decisions.

As the Supreme Court begins its new term Monday, its sixth with John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, the reality is that this is the most conservative court since the mid-1930s. Since Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, conservatives have sought to change constitutional law, and they have succeeded in virtually every area. During the first years of the Roberts court, it has consistently ruled in favor of corporate power, such as in holding that corporations have the 1st Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts in independent political campaigns.

Five years ago, when John G. Roberts Jr. became the Supreme Court's chief justice, he described the job as though he would be a minor functionary, more like an umpire behind the plate than the star of the game. He also said he favored minimal and narrow decisions, rather than broad but divisive rulings that would abruptly change the law. But in recent weeks, Roberts has shown that when he has the support of moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he is willing to move boldly on behalf of conservative causes.

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week after landmark decisions protecting the right to have a gun and the right of corporations to spend freely on elections. But the year's most important moment may have come on the January evening when the justices gathered at the Capitol for President Obama's State of the Union address. They had no warning about what was coming. Obama and his advisors had weighed how to respond to the court's ruling the week before, which gave corporations the same free-spending rights as ordinary Americans.

The Supreme Court term beginning today offers Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his colleagues a fresh opportunity to realize Roberts' vision of a court that speaks with a single voice and moves cautiously in upending established law. They should seize it. Both consensus and caution were in shamefully short supply in the court's 2006-07 term, and so was civility. Twenty-four cases were decided by 5-4 majorities. Liberals quarreled with conservatives. Conservatives quarreled among themselves.

A lustrous legacy of the civil rights movement has survived a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. By an 8-1 vote, the court has preserved a requirement that states and localities with a history of abridging the right to vote must get approval from the U.S. Justice Department before making changes to their election procedures, a practice known as "pre-clearance." In refusing to strike down Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

WASHINGTON - Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts Jr.considers it an insult when he hears it said that he and the justices are playing politics. He has always insisted his sole duty was to decide the law, not to pick the political winners. Until this week, however, not many were inclined to believe him. Those on the left - and the right - were convinced they could expect Roberts to be a reliable vote on the conservative side. But no more. The chief justice took control of two of the biggest politically charged cases in a decade, involving the Affordable Care Act and Arizona's immigration law, and he fashioned careful, lawyerly rulings that resulted in victories for the Obama administration.

The Supreme Court, often described as conservative, divided and pro-corporate, has been sounding different notes in recent weeks. The justices have been unanimous, or nearly so, in dealing defeats to employers and to corporations. They have also taken the side of hard-luck plaintiffs who were mistreated by the government. Twice recently the court ruled for fired workers and expanded the reach of anti-discrimination laws. It revived an injured motorist's suit against Mazda, refusing to shield automakers from safety claims.

As the Supreme Court begins its new term Monday, its sixth with John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, the reality is that this is the most conservative court since the mid-1930s. Since Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, conservatives have sought to change constitutional law, and they have succeeded in virtually every area. During the first years of the Roberts court, it has consistently ruled in favor of corporate power, such as in holding that corporations have the 1st Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts in independent political campaigns.

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week after landmark decisions protecting the right to have a gun and the right of corporations to spend freely on elections. But the year's most important moment may have come on the January evening when the justices gathered at the Capitol for President Obama's State of the Union address. They had no warning about what was coming. Obama and his advisors had weighed how to respond to the court's ruling the week before, which gave corporations the same free-spending rights as ordinary Americans.

Five years ago, when John G. Roberts Jr. became the Supreme Court's chief justice, he described the job as though he would be a minor functionary, more like an umpire behind the plate than the star of the game. He also said he favored minimal and narrow decisions, rather than broad but divisive rulings that would abruptly change the law. But in recent weeks, Roberts has shown that when he has the support of moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he is willing to move boldly on behalf of conservative causes.

When John G. Roberts Jr. took over as chief justice at the Supreme Court four years ago, he sounded the same theme that President Obama did more recently. The court was too divided and too polarized, he said, and he proposed a type of judicial bipartisanship. He said he would seek a broader agreement among the justices, even if it sometimes meant deciding cases more narrowly.

The Supreme Court, often described as conservative, divided and pro-corporate, has been sounding different notes in recent weeks. The justices have been unanimous, or nearly so, in dealing defeats to employers and to corporations. They have also taken the side of hard-luck plaintiffs who were mistreated by the government. Twice recently the court ruled for fired workers and expanded the reach of anti-discrimination laws. It revived an injured motorist's suit against Mazda, refusing to shield automakers from safety claims.

"I'm not an ideologue," John G. Roberts Jr. told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. And with that comment, he aptly summarized the case he made for himself during four days of hearings on his nomination as the Supreme Court's chief justice. Based on his self-portrait, the Roberts court would not be the place where those in search of new legal rights and protections would find them. Nor, however, would the high court under his leadership press a conservative counter-revolution.

A lustrous legacy of the civil rights movement has survived a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. By an 8-1 vote, the court has preserved a requirement that states and localities with a history of abridging the right to vote must get approval from the U.S. Justice Department before making changes to their election procedures, a practice known as "pre-clearance." In refusing to strike down Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

The historic Voting Rights Act -- the 1965 law that ended a century of racial discrimination at the ballot box and gave blacks a political voice across the South -- survived a strong challenge at the Supreme Court on Monday as justices pulled back from a widely anticipated decision to strike down a key part of the law as outdated and unfair to today's South. Instead, the justices agreed to narrow the law's impact by allowing municipalities with a clean record to seek an exemption.