One vote can tip scales of justice

With the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, an array of your rights are just one vote away from validation or elimination. That reality was brought home in the past week with a succession of key rulings.

Do you think workers should not be fired on the basis of sexual orientation? Those LGBT rights were preserved by a single vote, a 54 ruling.

Do you want young people brought to the United States as young children — and have gone on to attend school and work in the only country many of them have known — to stay here as productive members of society? They maintained that insurance in a single vote, a 54 ruling.

Do you believe that the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision precludes undue restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion? That right was upheld by a single vote, a 54 ruling.

Do you want your government to support private schools that may not only adhere to a different religion than yours, but may impose beliefs that are anathema to your values, such as comparing homosexuality to bestiality and incest? Those religious schools were guaranteed that right by a single vote, a 54 ruling.

The stakes for the high court in the 2020 election could not be clearer. Chief Justice John Roberts, a 2005 appointee of President George W. Bush, cast the deciding vote in each of the above cases. Roberts is a conservative, but has also proved to be a guardian of the notion that the judiciary should be insulated from the politics of the moment. As President Trump has selected two devout conservatives for the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh — Roberts has gained influence that goes even beyond his authority to assign majority opinions in a way that determines whether rulings are narrow or sweeping.

The Roberts factor has rarely been more profound than in his decision to tip the balance against a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform abortions to have “admitting privileges” at a nearby hospital. The facts in that case were similar to those in a 2016 ruling in a Texas case the court struck down but in which Roberts was a dissenting voice.

In his written opinion, Roberts indicated that he continued to believe the

Texas case “was wrongly decided” but that the court should respect its precedent. In other words, the court should not reverse itself just because it happens to have two new justices.

This is consistent with Roberts’ recent pattern of being a force for consensus and continuity on the divided court. He has sided with the majority in each of the 11 rulings decided by a 54 or 53 vote this term.

In recent years, Roberts alternately has been a hero and antagonist for the right and left. In 2012, he joined his more liberal colleagues to uphold the Affordable Care Act, but also has voted to pare back the reach of the Voting Rights Act and was among the five justices who delivered the 2010 Citizens

United ruling that lifted the limits on corporate and union donations in political campaigns.

The thin line on those rulings highlights how the course of Americans’ rights on myriad issues will be determined in November — or perhaps earlier if a vacancy were to occur. Two of the more reliably liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, are 87 and 81 respectively. The appointment of a rigidly conservative successor of either by Trump and the likely confirmation by a Republicancontrolled Senate would effectively end Roberts’ role as a swing vote. The court would be solidly right. Nearly five decades of abortion rights would be in serious jeopardy, especially with a number of state laws pushing the boundaries of Roe vs. Wade with an array of restrictions on women’s access to the procedure.

Trump has not tried to conceal his intent to bend the ideological bent of the court to the right, with a specific goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade. Establishment of a more conservative judiciary was a central campaign promise of his in 2016, a signature accomplishment of his first three years and continues to be a source of his support from evangelicals.

A Joe Biden presidency would be much less likely to reshape the high court. The oldest of the conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, is just 72. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are in their 50s.

The past week has left no doubt that the Supreme Court must be a frontandcenter issue in the 2020 presidential election.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images A series of 54 votes has drawn attention to the top court’s precarious balance.