“In Need Of A Constitutional Rationale”: Supreme Court Judicial Activism At Its Worst, Because They Felt Like It
There’s something about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby that’s bothered me all day. It’s probably unimportant — Jonathan Adler, feel free to jump in and set me straight — but as I read the ruling (pdf) this morning, I was looking for something specific: why the court majority considers Sec. 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
I’m not an attorney, so I’ll concede my background is limited, but in the rulings I’ve read striking down federal laws, there’s some kind of explanation as to the part of the Constitution the law ostensibly contradicts. A statute violates the First Amendment, or the Commerce Clause, or the Due Process clause, etc., and is therefore unlawful.
So on what grounds, exactly, did the court find Sec. 4 of the VRA unconstitutional? I have no idea.
Assuming I’d missed something important, I asked the Constitutional Accountability Center’s David Gans to help me out. He told me:
“Your question highlights a fundamental flaw in Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. The Court strikes down a core provision of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional without ever explaining what provision of the Constitution commands this result. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the conservative majority argued that the Voting Rights Act provision was inconsistent with the ‘letter and spirit of the Constitution,’ but he never really explained why.
“His majority opinion emphasized that the Voting Rights Act diminished the sovereignty of states, ignoring that Fifteenth Amendment expressly gives to Congress broad power to prevent all forms of racial discrimination in voting by the states. As Justice Ginsburg’s powerful dissent demonstrates, the Court’s opinion cannot be squared with the text, history, and meaning of the Fifteenth Amendment.”
Judicial restraint is often a rather amorphous concept, which sometimes means different things to different people. But in this case we have a piece of civil-rights legislation that was approved by the people’s representatives, and then re-approved with large majorities several times. It was signed into law by an elected president, and then reauthorized to great fanfare by subsequent presidents of both parties. It’s been subjected to judicial scrutiny over the course of several decades, and a judicial precedent has been set: the Voting Rights Act is legal.
Or put another way, when federal law is endorsed by the House, the Senate, the president, and the public, and it’s consistent with decades of Supreme Court precedent, a court majority probably ought to have a very good reason for tossing all of that aside.
But in Shelby, five conservative justices gutted the Voting Rights Act anyway, deeming it inconsistent with the Constitution because, well, they said so. These jurists said the same law used to be perfectly constitutional, but somehow morphed into being unconstitutional without anyone noticing, and without violating anything specific in the Constitution itself.
I’d argue this is the opposite of restraint; it’s activism. The justices decided to substitute their judgment for the people’s and their elected lawmakers, because they felt like it.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, June 25, 2013
“Protection Of Minority Voting Rights Is A Thing Of The Past”: SCOTUS Voting Rights Decision Hurls Nation Back To Its Tragic Past
In a 5-4 decision along the ideological lines one might expect, the Supreme Court today cut out the heart and soul of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
While preserving the purpose and the intent of the momentous civil rights law—as set forth in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) which proclaims that no American can be denied the right to vote based on their race or gender—the Court struck down the sole method of enforcing the intent of the law. They accomplished this by declaring Section 4 of the Act, which sets forth the formula for determining which state and local governments must seek federal approval of any and all changes to their voting laws before placing the same into effect, to be unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts stated,
“In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”
In other words, it is the opinion of the Court’s majority that the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act worked so well that to continue enforcement under the existing scheme is unconstitutional.
The logic of the majority represents a tragic irony given that the ruling comes at a time when minority voting rights are, once again, under severe attack as state governments under GOP control seek to rig the game in an effort to overcome the demographic and racial shifts in the electorate. These changes dramatically improve the opportunities for Democrats to gain elected office—particularly when it comes to the presidency.
Indeed, it was the Voting Rights Act that was at the heart of successful efforts to stop states attempting to cut back on early voting hours and instituting voter identification laws that would have dramatically affected minority voter turnout during the 2012 election. Now, the opportunity to rely on the law to stop future efforts to curtail minority voting will have vanished in a 5-4 decision.
Not all that many years ago, I might have seen the logic in the majority’s opinion.
A review of registration and voting data in the state and local governments that have been—up until today—required to gain federal approval of their voting and registration laws before placing them into effect, revealed that major steps forward had taken place as a result of the 1965 law. Still, Congress saw fit to continue the formula set forth in Section 4 of the VRA when they renewed the law in 2006 without making changes to which states and local governments are affected—a Congressional decision that rests at the very heart of the Supreme Court majority’s displeasure.
The Court had previously warned Congress of what might come if they failed to make adjustments to the law based on recognizing the advancements made in states still subject to federal oversight. In 2009, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the Voting Rights Act in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. In that case, the Court avoiding ruling on the central issue—the constitutionality of all or part of the VRA. However, the majority went out of their way to highlight their concern that Congress was relying on old data collected in 1974 when calculating which state and local governments would continue to be subject to federal approval of local voter laws.
Congress never got around to reviewing the law, based on the Supreme Court’s admonition, leading to today’s regressive decision.
At the time of the Municipal Utility decision, I saw some value in the Court’s approach. While it remained—and remains—essential that the VRA continue in full force and effect to protect the voting rights of all Americans, it made sense that data constantly be reviewed by Congress so as to grant more sovereign authority to states and local governments who may now adequately protect voting rights. But it remains equally as important that the federal government hold onto the opportunity to clamp down on these governmental units should they return to old habits.
But then came the efforts over the past few election cycles to suppress the vote of minorities in various states throughout the nation. In each instance, the drive to limit access to the polls came in states where the government was fully under the control of Republicans looking to improve the chances of electoral victory in the 2012 presidential election.
We all recall what happened in states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio where difficult and unreasonable voter ID laws, or dramatically shortened early voting hours and other voting opportunities were suddenly legislated into existence.
The State of Texas—a state subject to the requirements of Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act—has now produced the most restrictive voter ID law in the country but has been unable to implement the law as the Feds have yet to approve it. The same is the case in Virginia where an onerous voter ID law has been signed by the Governor but held up pending federal approval as they too are subject to the enforcement provisions of the VRA.
Federal protections of minorities in these states are now a thing of the past. Indeed, the state of Texas has already announced that, based on today’s Supreme Court ruling, they no longer have to wait for federal approval of their voter ID law and that the law will go into effect immediately.
Seeing this happen makes it all too clear that many of these states have not changed their ways since the day President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law and that the only thing that has protected minorities in these states during the years following 1965 has been the very part of the Voting Rights Act that has now been invalidated.
The Supreme Court got it wrong. By not recognizing that the success of the Voting Rights Act enforcement provisions was based on the existence of the enforcement provisions, the Court has condemned the nation to relive some of the worst days and inequities in our history.
While today’s decision does leave the door open for Congress to take on the issue and re-craft Section 4 with an eye to current data, does anyone actually believe that this will happen with the GOP in control of the House of Representatives?
Not likely—or at least not likely until we have a federal government fully back in the hands of the Democratic Party.
For anyone out there who believes that midterm elections are not particularly exciting or worth your time, the stakes of the 2014 midterms just increased dramatically. The nation took a giant step backwards today—a misstep that can only be corrected by the return of the House of Representatives to Democratic control and retaining the Democratic majority in the Senate. As a result, while today’s Supreme Court decision makes this a very sad day in the advancement of the nation, it may be just the kick in the pants Americans require to get out of the house and down to the voting booth in November, 2014.
Let’s hope so.
A lot of Americans suffered a great deal—some making the ultimate sacrifice—to make the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a reality.
We should not let them down now.
By: Rick Ungar, Op-Ed Contributor, Forbes, June 25, 2013
“Paranoid Concerns”: Making A Mountain Out Of A Digital Molehill
The revelations this week that the federal government has been scooping up records of telephone calls inside the United States for seven years, and secretly collecting information from Internet companies on foreigners overseas for nearly six years, have elicited predictable outrage from liberals and civil libertarians.
Is the United States no better than those governed by repressive dictators who have no regard for individual rights? Could President Obama credibly raise human rights issues with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at a summit meeting on Friday, if America is running its own vast surveillance state? Has Mr. Obama, for all his talk of ending the “war on terror,” taken data mining to new levels unimagined by his predecessor, George W. Bush?
Hold it just a minute.
From what has been made public, we know that the F.B.I., under the Obama administration, used its powers under the Patriot Act to seek these records; that judges with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved these searches; and that members of Congress with oversight powers over the intelligence community were briefed about the searches. Some of them, like Senators Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, and Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, were uncomfortable with the scope of the data gathering and made their disapproval public, even though secrecy rules prohibited them from being more specific about their concerns, until now.
It is evident, then, that all three branches of government were involved in the records search afoot at the telecommunications carriers and Internet companies. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which Congress passed after 9/11, governed the executive branch’s search authority. Oversight committees were kept in the loop, as Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, has confirmed. And the authorizations were approved by life-tenured federal judges who are sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. On the surface, our system of checks and balances seems to be working.
We cannot rule out the possibility that the voluminous records obtained by the government might, some day, be illegally misused. But there is no evidence so far that that has occurred.
First, no contents of phone conversations are being provided to the government. Indeed, the Patriot Act precludes provision of call contents.
Second, the two senators who complained in public, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Udall, apparently were in a minority on the committee. Otherwise, the bipartisan committee could have held hearings, either in closed or open session, to seek further details and prepare legislation to limit the F.B.I.’s data-gathering powers.
Third, unlike you and me, federal judges on the surveillance court, established in 1978, reviewed the government’s request for information and the reasons provided to support the request. We do know that the search requests have required periodic renewal. And we know that, for reasons the judges thought sufficient, the contents of the order were sealed, with special mention that it was not to be available to foreign entities. Judge Roger Vinson, who signed the July order extending the requirement that Verizon furnish phone logs, struck a balance: he put a time limit on the data-gathering, to ensure executive accountability, but also issued a secrecy order, to protect national security.
But shouldn’t I be concerned that F.B.I. agents are trampling my rights, just like the I.R.S. might have trampled the rights of certain organizations seeking tax-exempt status? As it turns out, the answer is no. The raw “metadata” requested will not be directly seen by any F.B.I. agent.
Rather, a computer will sort through the millions of calls and isolate a very small number for further scrutiny. Perhaps one of the numbers was called by one of the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston Marathon bombings. Or perhaps a call was placed by a Verizon customer to a known operative of Al Qaeda. The Supreme Court long ago authorized law enforcement agencies to obtain call logs — albeit on paper rather than from a computer database — without full probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.
To listen to the contents of any particular call or to place a wiretap on a particular phone, the F.B.I. would have to go back to a judge for a more detailed order, this time showing probable cause sufficient to meet stringent Fourth Amendment standards. Otherwise, the evidence from the call could not be used to prosecute the caller or call recipient. Privacy rights, in short, have been minimally intruded upon for national security protections.
Finally, let’s consider the alternative some activist groups and media organizations seek: more narrowly tailored gathering of records, and full transparency after the fact about what kinds of records have been obtained. There are obvious problems with this approach. Let’s say the judicial order leaked to The Guardian this week had specified the phone numbers about which the F.B.I. had concerns. Releasing those numbers would surely have tipped off the people using those numbers, or their associates, and caused them to change their mode of communicating. Already, there is a real probability that individuals planning terrorist activities are using channels of communication that will not show up in the databases of service providers. If the order revealed more expansively the standards the F.B.I. used to seek broad sets of records, again those seeking to avoid detection for terrorism-related activities could simply change their methods of doing business.
In short, I think I will take my chances and trust the three branches of government involved in the Verizon request to look out for my interest. Privacy advocates, civil libertarians, small-government activists and liberal media organizations are, of course, are welcome to continue working to keep them honest. But I will move back to my daily activities, free from paranoid concerns that my government is spying on me.
By: Charles Shanor, Op-Ed Contributor, The New York Times, June 7, 2013
“Suspicionless Search And Seizure”: The Supreme Court Rules That DNA Is Like A Fingerprint Or Mugshot
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police have the right to gather DNA evidence without a search warrant after an arrest and before the arrestee has been convicted of a crime. The majority ruled that a cheek swab is no different from taking a fingerprint or a photograph.
Already 26 states collect DNA samples from suspects, a fact that had gone mostly unnoticed until 26-year-old Alonzo King was arrested in Maryland for second-degree assault in 2009. Maryland authorities took a DNA swab from King while he was in custody, and after running it through the state’s and the FBI’s databases, they found that it matched DNA from an unsolved rape committed in 2003.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Monday reversed a 2012 Court of Appeals decision in which Maryland’s highest court ruled in King’s favor, stating that the DNA swab was used for investigative purposes after his arrest—this was in direct violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, as he had not been convicted of any crime and was still presumed innocent.
Groups including DNA Saves have been advocating for the DNA swabbing of arrestees as a means to close unsolved cases, citing statistics that most crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was among the five Justices who voted to reverse Maryland’s decision. “DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure,” Kennedy wrote. “Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined Justice Antonin Scalia in his written opposition to the court’s decision. His dissent began, “The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.”
Scalia’s defense of the Fourth Amendment continued in his scathing dissent: “Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches.”
The dissenting Justices warned of likening DNA sampling to fingerprinting and taking photographs. They aimed to differentiate between methods of identifying and investigating an individual after their arrest and before a trial.
New technologies are increasingly presenting privacy challenges that complicate the typical conservative/liberal alliances on the Court.
USA Today reports, “Last year, they held that police could not attach a GPS tracking device to a car in order to monitor a suspect’s movements. This year, they ruled that using a drug-sniffing dog with reasonable suspicion was OK — but not at the door of a private home. And they decided that executing a search warrant after a suspect had left his home was out of bounds.”
Of course the major difference between last year’s decisions and the one the Supreme Court reached today is that DNA swabs may be used by authorities to implicate an arrestee in crimes for which they have no warrant or reasonable suspicion. In this way, the majority found, a DNA swab is similar to the procedural tasks of taking a fingerprint or a mugshot.
The minority warned of the broader implications of the decision.
“Make no mistake about it: Because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” Scalia wrote in his dissent. “This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA whenever you fly on an airplane.”
By: Allison Brito, June 3, 2013
“Taxation Without Representation”: American Citizens Sould Be Treated Like American Citizens
Vice President Joe Biden is right: There should be two senators from the District of Columbia, not to mention at least one voting member of the U.S. House. Americans living in the U.S. capital, in other words, should have the basic rights of citizenship that they are currently denied.
The fact that more than 630,000 U.S. citizens living in the United States of America are not represented in Congress is an outrage and an insult to the most fundamental right due to all American citizens: representation in government. Remember the American Revolution (and the original tea party)? They were complaining about taxation without representation. More than two centuries later those residing in what should be the living symbol of democratic ideals of representative government are experiencing taxation without representation.
As a point of comparison, imagine the outrage if Boston (with an estimated 2011 population of more than 625,000) was removed from the congressional map; or Seattle (more than 620,000 as of 2011); or Milwaukee (597,000 in 2011); Las Vegas (589,000 in 2011); or Atlanta (432,000 in 2011).
This is a mostly but not entirely partisan issue, though it is often seen through that rather puerile lens. It’s gotten support from prominent conservatives like Ken Starr and Viet Dinh. And at least partial restoration of these basic American rights nearly occurred four years ago before it was derailed by – wait for it – a squabble over gun rights.
Parting thought: For the first 10 years of the District of Columbia’s existence, before it became the seat of the federal government in 1800, D.C. citizens had congressional representation. When Maryland and Virginia ceded the land to the government for the creation of the District, those living there were still allowed to vote in their old states’ congressional and legislative races. Once the federal government moved to D.C., those basic rights were revoked. That revocation is a festering wound on the country’s democratic spirit.
Congress gaveth and then tooketh away … it’s time it giveth back.
By: Robert Schlesinger, U. S. News and World Report, May 3, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 