Chief Justice John Roberts managed to disappoint both the left and the right Thursday, capping a Supreme Court term in which he was determined to ensure that the center — and the principle of judicial modesty — would hold.

The swing vote in two of the session’s most-watched cases, Roberts sided with the “liberals” to block Team Trump’s plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, and with the “conservatives” to keep the federal courts completely out of trying to write rules to limit partisan gerrymandering.

This caps a term where “left” and “right” blocs broke up frequently, as nearly every justice crossed those supposedly-set-in-concrete lines in many decisions. That in itself boosts the public’s trust in the court.

see also

Supreme Court throws out conviction of Mississippi death row inmate

The US Supreme Court on Friday threw out the 2010…

Roberts has strived to avoid unneeded overreach. In nixing the citizenship question, for example, he endorsed the basic legality of having the Census pose it — but saw a violation of administrative law.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross claimed he inserted the question “solely” because the Justice Department requested it, to enforce the Voting Rights Act. Yet Roberts found that a “contrived” rationale, since Ross had wanted to add the question “from the time he entered office.” The Administrative Procedures Act, the chief justice noted, requires a proper explanation.

This sidesteps partisan passions: Democrats fear the question would lead illegal immigrants to avoid being counted at all, and of course these days take offense at any questions about citizenship, anywhere.

In the redistricting case, Roberts joined the majority ruling that “partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.”

While the court agreed that “excessive partisanship in districting” can seem “incompatible with democratic principles,” it insisted it lacks authority to fix the problem.

In a key way, the decision was a wash politically: It went against Republicans in Maryland and Democrats in North Carolina. And it stuck to the actual language of the Constitution, rather than rely on social science to empower judicial activism. The battle to limit gerrymandering now must focus on changing state and federal laws.

John Roberts’ truly modest, restrained approach aims to avoid pouring gas on America’s political fires. Good for him.

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack