“Antonin Scalia And His Argle-Bargle”: He Doesn’t Want To Be Seen As The Bigot He Is
Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent (pdf) in U.S. v. Windsor, the ruling that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, is not subtle in its anger. The conservative Supreme Court jurist refers on page 22, for example, to the “legalistic argle-bargle” the court majority uses as its rationale.
And as Paul Waldman explained, the dissent goes downhill from there.
Scalia is outraged at the majority’s contention that the core purpose of DOMA was to discriminate against gay people, and this, he asserts, means that they’re calling everyone who supports it a monster. “To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution,” he writes.
And more: “It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
Yes, apparently Scalia is feeling a little defensive, so much so that he believes those who disagree with him are calling him an enemy of humanity. One gets the sense reading his dissent that he doesn’t want to be seen as a bigot, just because he’s on record describing homosexuality in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent as “a lifestyle” that should be seen as “immoral and destructive.”
But let’s also not overlook this curious argument from the beginning of his DOMA dissent:
“This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. “
Really? When it’s the Voting Rights Act and the Affordable Care Act on the line, Scalia doesn’t hesitate to take an axe to “democratically adopted legislation,” approved by the elected representatives of Americans who are able to “govern themselves.” But when it’s the Defense of Marriage Act, Scalia suddenly remembers his affinity for restraint?
Exactly one year ago yesterday, following some of Scalia’s partisan antics, a constitutional law professor at UCLA said the conservative jurist “has finally jumped the shark.” At the time, that seemed like a reasonable assessment, and yet, Scalia somehow manages to get worse.
Update: Sahil Kapur takes the next step, listing “the top 10 quotes from the staunchly conservative jurist — a mix of rage-filled metaphors and legal punches.”
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, June 26, 2013
“The Initiative Process Just Got A Whole Lot Weaker”: How The Supreme Court Crippled Direct Democracy
Gay marriage advocates won a big dual victory in two cases decided by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. But one of the two decisions, the ruling that effectively struck down California’s Proposition 8, may have a very significant impact on governing that’s separate from the gay-marriage issue.
The Prop 8 ruling may have dealt a body blow to the ideal of direct democracy.
California voters approved Prop 8 in 2008. A district court decision later overturned the Prop. 8 law, and California’s elected officials refused to appeal. So the supporters of Proposition 8 sued instead. They won their case over whether they had the right to sue in the California Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court saw things much differently. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court ignored the underlying issue of gay marriage, and instead held that the anti-gay-marriage advocates couldn’t show they were harmed by the state government’s decision to ignore the initiative. The decision quotes an older Supreme Court ruling noting that the doctrine of standing “serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” But usurping the power of the political branches is exactly what the initiative is specifically designed to do.
The entire reason for initiatives is to bypass the office-holders in government. Former California Gov. Hiram Johnson, who was responsible for the state’s passage of the direct democracy provisions, said that the initiative would “give to the electorate the power of action when desired.” Frequently, the laws passed by initiative are unpopular or politically unpalatable with elected officials. Consider, for instance, California’s popularly approved initiative that stripped the power of redistricting from the state legislature.
The Supreme Court’s decision may mean that initiatives are now at the mercy of elected officials. Imagine a popularly approved referendum that is challenged and struck down in court. The government can just elect not to appeal — and thanks to the Supreme Court, no private citizens can step in to fill this void.
The track record of elected officials acting against their perceived self-interest is not good. You don’t just have to look at the sorry state of campaign finance laws, which frequently assist the incumbent, or in the use of redistricting to gerrymander impregnable districts. There’s also the initiative’s direct democracy cousin, the recall. In the past two years, we have seen numerous instances of elected officials across the country in local jurisdictions working to subvert the use of the recall against themselves or their colleagues. The officials may refuse to schedule a vote. In other cases, they sue under very questionable legal arguments to stop the recall from taking place. In one instance, a city council tried to kill the adoption of a recall law, only to be overturned by a charter commission and the voters.
Elected officials already have a great weapon. Supporters of recalls or initiatives have to pay legal fees out of their own pocket to force the elected officials to act. Elected officials usually have the luxury of defending the sometimes questionable decisions using government funds. But even that advantage pales in comparison to strength they’ve just been given by the Supreme Court.
Initiatives are frequently divisive and controversial, as Prop 8 shows. But the voters and officials of the 27 states with the initiative or popular referendum process in place are the ones who decided to grant people this power. They adopted these laws specifically to provide a way to bypass the governor and legislature and enact politically unpalatable laws. The Supreme Court may have just effectively shut that route down.
By: Joshua Spivak, The Week, June 28, 2013
“Supreme Conflicts”: The Peaks And Valleys That Illustrate Our Country’s Worse Divisions
Like most families, my brood is a complex configuration of souls, so I greeted this week’s flurry of Supreme Court decisions with a conflicted heart.
This is true for most anyone who paid attention to the court rulings, I imagine. This latest round reflects parts of our culture we either want to embrace or want to reject. No middle ground here. It’s all peaks and valleys, the perfect graphic to illustrate our country’s divisions these days.
Initially, I was overjoyed to hear that the court had struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act — a ridiculously named law that did nothing but harm to innocent people and their families for 17 years. Finally, the U.S. government must recognize the legal marriages of same-sex couples, and the earth didn’t tremble, not even a little bit.
Immediately, my mind was flooded with the faces of so many gay men and women who populate our daily lives — good people, crazy loyal and with a patience no one has the right to ask of them.
My mood was quickly tempered by the wake-up jolt of reality. Thirty-nine states still treat their gay citizens like modern-day lepers, passing bills and referenda as redundant as they are hateful. The DOMA decision does nothing to stop states from continuing to discriminate against men and women whose only crime is to be different from the people who fear them for reasons they can’t explain, even to themselves.
A lot of people who oppose marriage equality like to blame God for their bigotry. In my version of heaven, I get to watch them try to explain themselves.
Meanwhile, down here on earth, every time I hear someone talk about how God hates homosexuality — that whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” malarkey — I think of my late mother, whose faith survived countless trials in her 62 years.
“Being a Christian means fixing yourself and helping others,” she used to say, “not the other way around.” That’s a lifetime of work summed up right there.
Nine years ago, my husband and I were married by a minister who still cannot wed her longtime partner simply because they live in Ohio instead of Massachusetts, say, or any other state in New England where same-sex marriage is legal.
To this day, friends and family who attended our wedding want to talk about how moved they were by Pastor Kate’s sermon at our service. To this minute, Pastor Kate cannot legally claim Jackie — beloved to all of us — as her spouse, even as she works for the United Church of Christ every single day.
God’s will, you understand.
Uh-huh.
Also this week, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act by ruling that Section 4 of the 1965 law is now unconstitutional. This particular section provides a formula to determine which jurisdictions are subject to federal government clearance before they can change their voting laws.
Historically, the voters targeted by these attempts to reduce their numbers are people of color. Also historically, Republicans are behind these changes, but they pinky-swear that it has nothing to do with how few people of color vote for them.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written about these Republican stunts to suppress the vote. I can’t think of anything more patriotic than helping every eligible voter cast a ballot.
As I age, however, and our children grow up and marry, my patriotic fervor has become to-the-bone personal.
Our 5-year-old grandson bears his mother’s family name, which is Puerto Rican. Our future son-in-law emigrated with his family from El Salvador when he was a child. Republicans are not, shall we say, big fans.
As Columbia University professor Rodolfo O. de la Garza explained in an op-ed in February for The New York Times, America’s Latinos are increasingly the new Republican target for all things sinister.
“The nation does not acknowledge the discrimination Latinos have undergone,” he wrote. “Today, many public officials from states across the nation seem to feel free to treat Latinos as unwelcome newcomers and view Latino voters with suspicion. Republicans are especially leery of Latino voters who are perceived to be noncitizens or, even worse, Democrats.
“Without the law’s threat of federal intervention, I fear that the promise of Latino political equality will stagnate.”
That’s my family he’s talking about.
Fortunately, by 2043, that will be most American families in this country, as the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that that’s the year the white majority will be history.
This white granny’s going to eat a really healthful diet between now and then, because I want to live to see that day.
By: Connie Schultz, The National Memo, June 27, 2013
“The Consequences Of One Vote Majorities”: In 2016, Remember This Week At The Supreme Court
It’s been a week of mixed emotions for those of us who care about civil rights. There was the elation today when the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Defense of Marriage Act — the discriminatory law that has hurt so many Americans in its nearly 17 years of existence — and let marriage equality return to California. There was the anger when the Court twisted the law to make it harder for workers and consumers to take on big corporations. And there was the disbelief and outrage when the Court declared that a key part of the Voting Rights Act that was so important and had worked so well was now somehow no longer constitutional.
But throughout the week, I have been reminded of one thing: how grateful I am that Mitt Romney will not be picking the next Supreme Court justice.
It remains true that this Supreme Court is one of the most right-leaning in American history. The majority’s head-in-the-sand decision on the Voting Rights Act — declaring that the VRA isn’t needed anymore because it’s working so well — was a stark reminder of why we need to elect presidents who will nominate Supreme Court justices who understand both the text and history of the Constitution and the way it affects real people’s lives.
We were reminded of this again today when all the conservative justices except for Anthony Kennedy stood behind the clearly unconstitutional DOMA. Justice Antonin Scalia — no stranger to anti-gay rhetoric — wrote an apoplectic rant of a dissent denying the Court’s clear role in preserving equal protection. If there had been one more far-right justice on the court, Scalia’s dissent could have been the majority opinion.
Just think of how different this week would have been if Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were not on the court and if John McCain had picked two justices instead. We almost certainly wouldn’t have a strong affirmation of LGBT equality. Efforts to strip people of color of their voting rights would likely have stood with fewer justices in dissent. And the rights of workers and consumers could be in even greater peril.
As the Republican party moves further and further to the right, it is trying to take the courts with it. This week, we saw what that means in practice. As we move forward to urge Congress to fix the Voting Rights Act and reinforce protections for workers and consumers, and work to make sure that marriage equality is recognized in all states, we must always remember the courts. Elections have real consequences. These Supreme Court decisions had less to do with evolving legal theory than with who appointed the justices. Whether historically good or disastrous, all these decisions were decided by just one vote. In 2016, let’s not forget what happened this week.
By: Michael B. Keegan, The Huffington Post, June 26, 2013
“Between A Rock And A Hard Place”: Social Conservatives Threaten Revolt Against GOP
Social conservatives are threatening to revolt against the the Republican Party, in the latest sign that the Republican National Committee’s “Growth & Opportunity Project” has little to no chance of success.
The latest Republican to strike a blow against the RNC’s rebranding plan is Tony Perkins, president of anti-gay hate group the Family Research Council. When it’s not pushing absurd conspiracy theories about ACORN and Obamacare, the FRC keeps busy by using pseudo-science to link homosexuality and pedophilia, and endorsing Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill, among other fringe right-wing activities. So naturally, Perkins isn’t thrilled with the RNC’s directive that “When it comes to social issues, the Party must in fact and indeed be inclusive and welcoming.”
Perkins has responded to the GOP reboot by directing his supporters to cut off their financial support for the party.
“Until the RNC and the other national Republican organizations grow a backbone and start defending core principles, don’t send them a dime of your hard-earned money,” Perkins wrote in an email to supporters Thursday night. “If you want to invest in the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who reflect your values and organizations you trust — like FRC Action.”
Perkins went on to theorize that extreme right-wing social policies are not the GOP’s problem, but in fact the solution.
“Instead of trying to appease millennials, Republicans should try educating them on why marriage matters,” Perkins wrote. “There’s an entire group of ‘Countercultural Warriors’ full of compelling young leaders who are all going to the mat to protect marriage.”
Perkins’ boycott call comes just days after a group of 13 right-wing leaders (including Perkins) signed a letter warning the RNC that social conservatives will break away from the GOP if the party fails to reaffirm its 2012 platform, which calls for bans on gay marriage and abortion rights.
“We respectfully warn GOP Leadership that an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support,” the letter warns.
Striking a similar note as Perkins, the signatories speculate that “it is the faith-based community which offers Republicans their best hope of expanding their support” among African-Americans, young voters, and other voter groups that have become reliable Democratic bases.
Perkins and his colleagues on the religious right pose a major problem for Reince Priebus and the Republican Party. Social conservatives still make up the majority of the party’s voter base, a fact that is not going to change anytime soon. But these voters are increasingly out of step with the rest of the country on just about every social issue. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds, for example, that 73 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents support legalizing same-sex marriage — up 18 percent and 17 percent, respectively, from 2009. Only 27 percent of Republicans support marriage equality, however, up just 5 percent from four years ago.
There aren’t enough “Countercultural Warriors” in the world to make up for that kind of gap — nor is there any evidence that the GOP’s target groups would even be amenable to being lectured by the party’s right wing.
What’s worse for Priebus is that it’s not entirely clear what more the Republican Party can do to appease social conservatives. As Maddow Blog’s Steve Benen points out:
Why, exactly, do social conservatives feel so aggrieved? On a purely superficial level, the party does not want to be perceived as right-wing culture warriors because Priebus and Co. realize that this further alienates younger, more tolerant voters. But below the surface, Republicans, especially at the state level, are banning abortion and targeting reproductive rights at a breathtaking clip, pursuing official state religions, eliminating sex-ed, going after Planned Parenthood, and restricting contraception. Heck, we even have a state A.G. and gubernatorial candidate fighting to protect an anti-sodomy law.
Indeed, Priebus himself recently penned an op-ed for a right-wing blog accusing Democrats of supporting infanticide by refusing to defund Planned Parenthood. If that type of rhetoric isn’t extreme enough to appease Perkins and his cohorts, then it’s unclear what the GOP’s next step could be.
So the RNC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. It can’t afford to lose the support of its base, but the longer the likes of Perkins and Rick Santorum maintain control of the party’s public message, the harder it will be for Republicans to win national elections.
By: Henry Decker, The National Memo, April 12, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 