In U.S. top court race case, John Roberts is chief phrasemaker

WASHINGTON Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:10pm EDT

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As U.S. chief justice, John Roberts has sought to rein in laws he insists have gone too far on race. At the Supreme Court on Tuesday, he matched rhetoric to action with a pithiness that underscores his opposition to racial preferences.

The court heard a challenge to a Michigan ban on race-based "preferential treatment" in education admissions - a ban that Roberts appeared to support in his questioning of lawyers who argued the case.

The session gave Roberts another opportunity to assert the United States has moved beyond a time when affirmative action was beneficial to blacks and Hispanics - and to assert it with attention-getting phrasemaking.

In a 2007 case, he wrote: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

On Tuesday, when civil rights lawyer Mark Rosenbaum stepped to the lectern to argue that the Michigan ban violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, Roberts leaned forward from his center chair on the mahogany bench and said curtly: "You could say that the whole point of ... the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is to take race off the table."

The chief justice's remarks resonated in the give-and-take, and when Michigan's solicitor general John Bursch returned to the lectern for his rebuttal, he referred to Roberts's "observation that the whole point of equal protection is to take race off the table."

Roberts' reputation for distilling an argument preceded his appointment by Republican President George W. Bush to the Supreme Court in 2005. As a lawyer, Roberts racked up 39 cases before the justices and earned accolades across the political spectrum for getting to the crux of his cases.


Tuesday's dilemma focused on the political process for ending - or ensuring - affirmative action at Michigan colleges and universities.

Roberts, whose opposition to racial policy was stoked in the 1980s when he worked in the Ronald Reagan administration, has ruled against race classifications in education, employment and voting rights. He has done it with rhetorical flourishes that lay down conservative markers and echo through the years.

"Things have changed in the South," he said in a 2009 voting rights case.

It helped foreshadow his decision for the court in June curtailing a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of discrimination at the polls, mainly in the South, to obtain federal approval before making any electoral changes.

On Tuesday, when Shanta Driver, a lawyer for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, stepped up to argue against the Michigan amendment, she broadly asserted the value of affirmative action to end "inequality in education" for blacks and whites.

Again leaning forward, his wire-rimmed reading glasses down his nose, Roberts asked, "What if the question of whether it's a benefit to the minority group is more open to debate?"

Driver said black voters in Michigan "certainly" believe affirmative action is valuable because 90 percent of them opposed the state amendment in 2006.

Roberts rejoined, "There may be a difference between popularity and benefit."

(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Howard Goller and Xavier Briand)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (26)
React wrote:
When affirmative action isn’t necessary anymore, then you can get rid of it. Clearly that time isn’t now.

Oct 16, 2013 11:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:
Proponents of “affirmative action” have stoked more racial and sexual hostility over the past half century than the Ku Klux Klan did in the half century before that. So now we have a country where racial and ethnic hostility and discrimination are enshrined still but with different targets. Will it take another half century for the hostility to die down some? Probably longer than that.

A system that handicaps babies of US citizens not even conceived yet on the basis of race and sex is just what it looks like. Negative discrimination, not “affirmative action”. But the damage has been done and Humpty Dumpty tumbled from the wall decades ago. Now the only debate is what to do with the resulting pieces and to figure out how to live with the resulting hostility and hatred.

Oct 16, 2013 11:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:
AA has taught a couple of generations now that they need not work hard, that they need not live under and abide by the same rules as those of us who do work hard. It has taught these same people that they are special because of who they are instead of what they have or could do. It has instilled a mindset of entitlement and expectation of easy living and that any adversity, obstacle, or resistance in life is directed at their skin color, appearance, or geographic origin. When the reality is we all have adversity and most of us are taught how to deal with it and move on, on the other hand AA simply teaches people to stop trying and wait for someone else to bail you out becuase life is singling you out specifically for difficulty. Get over it, you face no more obstacles than I do and I have made it just fine.

Oct 16, 2013 12:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.