| Politics and the judiciary |
[Jun. 26th, 2013|07:45 am]
Wolf
|
First, congratulations to Senator-elect Ed Markey, who will hopefully be seated before the August recess. We will soon have the fun of a race for Congress in his current seat. I am keeping fingers crossed for a candidate I met last month. I know he'll make a fine senator.
On to the meat: today yesterday the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned one section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically the section which determines what states, counties or cities need to submit plans for approval when making a change to voting districts. It's not a specific list of places; there was a formula, and many states in the South fall into the old formula rather handily. Since there is now no way to determine what places fall under the mother-may-I section, this makes the other sections involving enforcement moot.
However, that's not what I'm writing about. The decision of the very bare majority, as mentioned by Amy at SCOTUSBlog, reads much like this:
But today, fifty years later? Not so much. In the Court’s eyes, “things have changed dramatically.” When judged by a variety of measures – such as voter registration, voter turnout, and the number of African Americans elected to office — conditions have improved significantly in the states that are covered by the preclearance requirements. The Court agrees that these changes “are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act”; despite those improvements, the Court complains, the formula that determines who must comply with the preclearance requirement is “based on decades-old data” and practices – such as literacy tests – that were long ago abandoned. Because it isn’t fair for Congress to “rely simply on the past” to single out a few state and local governments for unequal treatment “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day,” the coverage formula cannot stand.
Here's what bothers me about this line of reasoning: it says that, since there are clear improvements because the law is being followed, that there is no major need for the law to stand as it currently is. In short, we followed the law so well that until Congress can update the law, we don't need to follow it.
They are talking about the right of factions controlling local and state governments to steal away suffrage--in effect, to steal your vote. "Well, the leaders in those places haven't stolen it as much in the last four decades, so we should look at where we used to worry about it and redefine how we figure it based on Twitter feeds and Cheetos consumption. Oh, and in the meantime? They can steal your vote. Pass the pork chops, I need me some sweet bacon." Yes, I do think at least one justice does not know the difference between smoked pork butt, pork chops, and stealing away a non-white person's vote. "Pass me some more Somebody Else's Suffrage, it goes great on pancakes!"
Imagine this used as a pretext for any other law. No, seriously, imagine it. Imagine that with falling murder rates (they have dropped off dramatically in New York City, among other places) we need to update our definition of murder, so in the meantime we don't need to enforce the laws against murder until we've made sure we've updated the definition. Imagine it with rape--the definition with that actually isn't the same at state and federal levels, and does vary somewhat from state to state. Penny Arcade (ugh, not linking), go sarcastic! Imagine it with torture. OK, don't bother imagining, we lived through that.
The only thing which I see as any sort of silver lining, the only thing, is that since the Court basically said that the definition needed to be redefined based on more current definitions and usage and principles, that this argument could be used against the right-wing justices in potential future cases regarding same-sex marriage. This is assuming that the court decides that the Defense of Marriage Act should still stand, a decision a true conservative should rail against. Of course, we'll find out their decision before noon. I hope they overturn DOMA, but I fully expect the five more conservative justices to vote as a bloc and say that the institution of marriage should be as it is now in the US, which is the same as it has always been before and the way it still is everywhere, hallelujah, pass the pork chops. I hope they pleasantly surprise me; I am not holding my breath.
Right now, at least two of the more right-wing justices are waiting for the next election to bring in a Republican before they voluntarily step off the bench. I'm thinking of Scalia and Kennedy, though Kennedy is a very occasional swing vote. I know they're waiting. For all that Obama has disappointed me in many, many ways, I want a Democrat in office in 2017 in part so they have to keep waiting. With any luck, they might decide they shouldn't do what prior Chief Justice William Rehnquist did: work til he died.
Republican Party leadership is in a tough spot. Demographics are against them, with their older voters dying off and newer voters more likely to vote Democratic. Rage fatigue is against them, as the dissonance between what they say and what they do is coming into ever-sharper relief. Even the truth is against them, given how many times they've lied and distorted facts just to score cheap points (Benghazi is the worst scandal ever? Really? Did you completely forget what happened in September of 2001? Or the money hoovering of Enron? Or the Vietnam War? Or Iran-Contra, where laws were broken by the President? Or freaking Watergate?) I won't defend Democrats doing those things, but there are differences of both degree and scale. It's an occasional hobby for some relatively small minority of Democrats in leadership; it's a way of life for a large majority of Republican leadership.
I hope the justices show some wisdom this morning. |
|
|
