Highbrow Magazine - Supreme Court Justices https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/supreme-court-justices en Confidence in the Supreme Court Is Declining – For a Valid Reason https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/21003-confidence-supreme-court-declining-valid-reason <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Mon, 08/08/2022 - 10:53</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1supremecourt_rep._carbajal-wikipedia_0.jpg?itok=gm0bAE6c"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1supremecourt_rep._carbajal-wikipedia_0.jpg?itok=gm0bAE6c" width="480" height="359" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/16/jan-6-panel-leaders-prepare-to-call-ginni-thomas-00040208" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Recent evidence</a> showing that Virginia Thomas, wife of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/us/politics/ginni-thomas-trump-mark-meadows.html" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">sent at least 29 text messages</a> to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urging him to help <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/us/politics/ginni-thomas-election-trump.html" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">overturn the 2020 election</a> has reignited a long-simmering debate about judicial ethics and the nation’s highest court.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><a href="https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/2019/11/what-does-fair-and-impartial-judiciary-mean-and-why-is-it-important/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Fair and impartial</a> judges are <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0241" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">essential</a> to the health and legitimacy of the judicial system and are a critical component of the system of government established in the U.S. Constitution.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">In the past, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/28/thomas-ginsburg-past-recusals/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">both liberal and conservative justices’ actions</a> have raised questions about ethical standards for the court. <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/conflict-interest-supreme-court-justices-stocks" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Justice Stephen Breyer’s wife</a> owned personal stock in a company involved in a Supreme Court case, for example, and former Justice Antonin Scalia <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scalia-cheney-trip-raises-eyebrows/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">went duck hunting with then-Vice President</a> Dick Cheney in 2003 when the court was considering a case focused on Cheney.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Legal scholars and pundits have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/25/us/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-recusal.html" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">debated</a> whether given justices should have voluntarily removed themselves from particular cases given potential conflicts of interest.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">As <a href="https://www.everingsmuth.com/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">a Supreme Court scholar</a>, I think it is important to recognize that there is no formal code of conduct guiding the work of the Supreme Court, which contributes to a lack of clarity regarding the ethical boundaries for justices.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/4supremecourt_supremecourtdotgov.jpg" style="height:434px; width:651px" typeof="foaf:Image" /></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>A code of ethics for some judges, not all</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Unlike Supreme Court justices, other federal judges follow a <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">code of conduct</a> developed by the Judicial Conference, a government <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/governance-judicial-conference" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">policymaking group for lower federal courts</a>.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">The code outlines ethical principles for judges, saying that they should remain independent and abstain from political activity, like giving money to a political candidate.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">The code also has a process <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2011year-endreport.pdf" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">for reviewing</a> if and when judges should not participate in a case because of a conflict of interest.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">But the Judicial Conference does not have any authority over the Supreme Court.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">So, as <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2011year-endreport.pdf" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Chief Justice John Roberts has pointed out</a>, the code does not apply to the Supreme Court – and does not “adequately answer some of the ethical considerations unique to the Supreme Court.”</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">A <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">federal law</a> applying to both Supreme Court justices and lower court judges does say that judges should remove themselves from a case when their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This process is <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/recusal" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">known as recusal</a>.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">While this law applies to Supreme Court justices, it does not cover other areas, such as political activity, that are part of the code of conduct for lower court judges.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">It is also difficult to enforce this law with Supreme Court justices, since there is no higher judicial body in the country that can review the justices’ actions. Congress could pursue impeachment of a justice for violating this law. But, as is the case for other government officials, if the House of Representatives votes to impeach a justice, removal from office still requires a two-thirds Senate vote – a very tall order.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/1clarencethomas_supreme_court.jpg" style="height:600px; width:480px" typeof="foaf:Image" /></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Designed for independence – not accountability</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">The U.S. Supreme Court was designed to operate differently from the legislative and the executive branches.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Presidents appoint Supreme Court justices to lifetime positions, making it possible for them to make decisions independent of politics and the pressure of elections – even if those decisions are at times unpopular.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">The U.S. Constitution’s writers developed some important constraints on the court that were intended to balance out this lack of public accountability.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">For example, the country’s <a href="https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0241" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">founders noted</a> that the judiciary must rely on Congress for funding and lacks an army or other mechanisms for directly enforcing its own decisions.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/limits-of-judicial-independence/1EBA3F818DC4DC18FA085DBAAD8CE360" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Some scholars argue</a> that because of this, the court strives not to stray too far from public opinion, because doing so could damage people’s respect for the court – and its authority.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">If people do not think the court is legitimate, its decisions could be <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/31us515" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">ignored</a> or not fully <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/349us294" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">carried out</a>.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>The court’s decline in public support</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Several <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">polls show</a> that public support for the Supreme Court has been declining to historic lows, even before the court’s <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">controversial ruling</a> on abortion rights in June.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">A July 2022 <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/supreme-court-job-approval-marquette-poll/index.html" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Marquette Law School poll</a> showed that 61% of individuals disapprove of the court’s work. This same poll showed that 60% of people approved of the court in July 2021.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Several factors contribute to this decrease in esteem for the court.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">There is a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/02/02/publics-views-of-supreme-court-turned-more-negative-before-news-of-breyers-retirement/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">growing perception</a> that partisan politics – rather than neutral legal analysis – is driving the court.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">In September 2019, 50% of the public viewed the court as “moderate,” while only 21% reported this in <a href="https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2022/07/20/mlspsc09-court-press-release/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">July 2022</a>. During that same time period, the percentage of those viewing the court as “very conservative” increased from 5% to 34%.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">The Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision to overturn <em>Roe v. Wade</em> also contributed to the perception that it has become more political – in part because it represented a major policy shift. This is also connected to the fact that some justices <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/collins-manchin-misled-kavanaugh-gorsuch-abortion-rights-rcna35230" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">made comments</a> during their confirmation process that were interpreted as indicating that the constitutional right to an abortion was settled law – and then voted to undo this protection.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/1amyconeybarrett_supreme_court-wikimedia.jpg" style="height:650px; width:539px" typeof="foaf:Image" /></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>A drying ‘reservoir of goodwill’</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/24363602" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Scholars have shown</a> that the Supreme Court has a substantial “reservoir of goodwill” that has insulated the court from long-term effects of past controversial decisions, such as <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline"><em>Bush v. Gore</em></a> in 2000, when the court ruled in President George W. Bush’s favor regarding an election recount dispute.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Democratic lawmakers have <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/29/democrats-urge-supreme-courts-clarence-thomas-to-recuse-himself-from-election-cases.html" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">called</a> for Thomas to recuse himself from court cases that address the 2020 election or the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Thomas was the only justice who dissented from the Supreme Court’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-formally-ends-trumps-fight-over-capitol-attack-records-2022-02-22/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">early 2022 decision</a> to refuse former President Donald Trump’s request to withhold documents from the U.S. House committee investigating the Capitol attacks.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">“This is a textbook case for removing him, recusing him from these decisions,” <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/27/clarence-ginni-thomas-supreme-court-texts/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">said Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar</a>.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Thomas has not indicated whether he would recuse himself from future cases about this issue.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">This position, combined with <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">public opposition</a> to the court’s abortion decision and low levels of overall <a href="https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2022/07/20/mlspsc09-court-press-release/" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">public approval</a>, suggests the court may be testing the limits of its “reservoir of goodwill.”</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Author Bio:</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong><em>Eve Ringsmith is an associate professor of political science at Oklahoma State University.</em></strong></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>This article was originally published in </strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/confidence-in-the-supreme-court-is-declining-but-there-is-no-easy-way-to-oversee-justices-and-their-politics-187233" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline"><strong>the Conversation</strong></a><strong>. It’s republished here with permission under a Creative Commons license.</strong></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Highbrow Magazine                        </strong></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Image Sources: </strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><em>--Fred Schilling - Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Supremecourt.gov, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_-_Roberts_Court_2020.jpg" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Wikimedia.org</a>, Creative Commons)</em></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><em>--Steve Petteway – Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Supremecourt.gov, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clarence_Thomas,_official_SCOTUS_portrait,_crop.jpg" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Wikimedia.org</a>, Creative Commons)</em></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><em>--Rep. Salud Carbajal (<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:My_Right_My_Decision_rally_United_States_Supreme_Court_%28March_4,_2020%29_05.jpg" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Wikimedia.org</a>, Creative Commons)</em></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><em>--U.S. Supreme Court (<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amy_Coney_Barrett.png" style="color:blue; text-decoration:underline">Wikimedia.org</a>, Creative Commons)</em></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/us-supreme-court" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">U.S. Supreme Court</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court-justices" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court Justices</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/brett-kavanaugh" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">brett kavanaugh</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/amey-coney-barrett" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">amey coney barrett</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/clarence-thomas" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">clarence thomas</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/ginny-thomas" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ginny thomas</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/republicans" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Republicans</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/law-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">the law</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/roe-v" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">roe v</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/wade" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">wade</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/congress" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">congress</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Eve Ringsmith</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">In Slider</div></div></div> Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:53:46 +0000 tara 11242 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/21003-confidence-supreme-court-declining-valid-reason#comments The Supreme Court and the Ongoing Debate About Originalism https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/12000-supreme-court-and-ongoing-debate-about-originalism <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Mon, 03/29/2021 - 10:07</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1supremecourt_rep._carbajal-wikipedia.jpg?itok=zycYXW_1"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1supremecourt_rep._carbajal-wikipedia.jpg?itok=zycYXW_1" width="480" height="359" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> </p> <p>The U.S. Supreme Court is now fully benched once again. The confirmation of two of its newest members, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, spurred a renewed conversation around originalism. This is the legal doctrine that Justice Antonin Scalia <a href="https://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466744465/originalism-a-primer-on-scalias-constitutional-philosophy" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">professed</a> and adhered to, and one that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg often repudiated.</p> <p> </p> <p>In an ironic twist of fate fit for 2020 (and by twist of fate I mean a process perfectly orchestrated by the Republican-led Senate), Justice Scalia’s former mentee would go on to fill Bader Ginsburg’s newly vacated seat. During her confirmation hearing, Coney Barrett was asked to explain originalism, which is the principle that she would presumably use on the Supreme Court bench to make rulings. She <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/17/originalism-diverse-america-how-does-amy-coney-barretts-judicial-philosophy-square-with-who-was-left-out-constitution/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">explained</a>:</p> <p> </p> <p>“So in English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time. And it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”</p> <p> </p> <p>So far so good. In its most basic sense, originalism dictates that a judge must consider what the plain text of the Constitution says and apply it to rulings; and if the text of the Constitution is not explicit, then a judge must infer what its writers must have meant it to be by deducing the intent of the text for the public at the time it was written. This sounds like an elastic description full of deep hidden and philosophical meanings, but that really is what originalism is about in a nutshell.</p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/2supremecourt_motiqua-creativecommons.jpg" style="height:398px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>Justice Scalia himself <a href="https://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466744465/originalism-a-primer-on-scalias-constitutional-philosophy" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">said</a> that the Constitution, “means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” In other words, any ruling that is not explicitly dictated by the words of the Constitution is simply “judicial lawmaking,” where a judge makes a ruling based on their own beliefs being applied to the law. Within these parameters, proponents of originalism argue, judges are limited to make rulings that are fully and explicitly based on the law of the land, even if they don’t necessarily like the decision they must make. And if the citizens no longer agree with a Constitutional law, the democratic process is thankfully already in place in which new laws can be enacted or old laws can be ratified by electing our political representatives to do so.</p> <p> </p> <p>At its most straightforward then, originalism limits judicial power to a written text to avoid personal biases when handing down decisions. We don’t want an ultraconservative judge suddenly ruling that non-binary persons are not allowed to hold an passport unless they “choose” a gender, for example; just as we don’t necessarily want a very liberal judge willy-nilly deciding that paying rent is unconstitutional (or, rather, if we do want that it should be thoroughly thought out and fully debated, not a decision made on the fly). And importantly, originalism attempts to place the power to enact and ratify laws and amend the Constitution squarely on the citizens, thus fulfilling one of the most crucial tenets of democracy. </p> <p> </p> <p>In theory, this makes sense; it sounds great, in fact. But because we live in a pluralistic society in a country that’s a couple centuries old, of course it can’t be as simple as it sounds. Originalism has a few problems to contend with, some of which are clear and easy to point out, and others that require a broader understanding, and perhaps even appreciation, of all the peoples who call America home.</p> <p> </p> <p>For starters, the Constitution is very short. It’s just a little over 7,500 words including all its amendments. By the sheer power it has as being the sole law of the land, it’s a lot of weight to carry in a piece of text that’s about as long as three times the size of this article you’re reading now. Naturally, the Constitution cannot possibly hold all the laws explicitly written in full detail that will dictate the lives of 325-plus million people. Sometimes the Constitution does a good job at laying things out. It says very clearly that to be president, a person must be at least 35 years old; it also says that each state gets two senators - not one, not three, not two only during leap years. </p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/3supremecourt_supremecourtdotgov.jpg" style="height:472px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>But more often than not, the Constitution is objectively <a href="https://www.vox.com/21497317/originalism-amy-coney-barrett-constitution-supreme-court" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">vague</a>. We know what “due process” is, technically, but how do we actually measure “due?” What constitutes the “general welfare” of the United States? Surely, the general welfare of a country is measured differently during times of war than during peacetime. And what does “general” mean here, anyway?</p> <p> </p> <p>In order to fill in the gaps, originalists attempt to surmise what the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they put these words down on paper. For instance, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to establish and to fund an Army and a Navy. But the text says nothing about an Air Force, since it would be a century after the Constitution was written that the Wright brothers would start flying around Kitty Hawk. To the writers of the Constitution, human flight was naught but a fantasy, and so there is no ambiguity in the text about what kind of armed forces Congress can establish: an Army and a Navy, that’s it. Could a lawsuit make its way to the Supreme Court arguing that the entire institution of the Air Force is actually unconstitutional and must be disbanded? Unlikely. But even if it did, the justices would probably infer that when the Founding Fathers wrote that Congress could establish an “Army and a Navy,” the public, and therefore judges, understand that to mean the establishment of “armed forces” so that our country can be protected, as that is the most logical interpretation of what the Constitution means to say.</p> <p> </p> <p>This way, originalists argue, the Constitution does indeed allow the flexibility to accommodate its text in a changing, modern society, as Justice Gorsuch himself <a href="https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-gorsuch-why-originalism-is-the-best-approach-to-the-constitution/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">reasoned</a>. It’s how and why free speech now also applies to the things we post on the internet. But it is this same faux flexibility that highlights some of the shortcomings of originalism. Because even taking the most “logical” explanation to justify the existence of an Air Force, that conclusion still had to be inferred, interpreted, arrived at with the morsels of text available and the context in which the question was framed, which is inevitably influenced by the societal environment in which we live in at any given time.</p> <p> </p> <p>The rigidity of the ideals of originalism, at the end, doesn’t allow for healthy democratic debate (whatever that means) like its proponents <a href="https://time.com/3937626/gay-marriage-antonin-scalia/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">contend</a>, or limit the whims of judicial lawmaking within a scant text of rules. On the contrary, originalism must wrestle with what may be the two biggest issues it tries to pass as features, which are issues that it mostly takes for granted but that people, especially the most vulnerable, must fight against every day, namely that: originalism assumes that all laws mandated by the Constitution are fair and just, and that all persons have equal democratic representation to ratify any laws that may, in fact, not be fair or just. </p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/2statueofliberty_pikist-creativecommons.jpg" style="height:400px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>One of the most blatant <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">examples</a> of this is the landmark Supreme Court <em>case Brown v. Board of Education</em>, in which the justices unanimously decided that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. This ruling, which was based on the regularly contested 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment, partially overturned the Plessy v. <em>Ferguson</em> decision from fift50  years earlier, which established the infamous “separate but equal” doctrine in America. Originalists concede that, within the scope of originalism, <em>Brown </em> was technically <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/originalism-barrett/616844/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">wrongly</a> decided. To be clear, they all agree that the decision was indeed the <em>correct</em> one, and that segregation has no place in schools; but the rigidity of originalism would not have allowed for that decision. There is just no directives about race relations in the Constitution. The 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment was also at the center of similar landmark cases handed down by the Supreme Court, such as <em>Roe v. Wade</em> regarding abortion, and <em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em> regarding same-sex marriage.</p> <p> </p> <p>This is an interesting dichotomy of opposing forces, because originalism gives itself an out when it conveniently needs one, but grasps hard at its tenets when that’s better suited. Justice Coney Barrett herself has <a href="https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&amp;context=ndlr" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">conceded</a> that while <em>Brown</em> was correctly decided, it would not have been so if it had been fully analyzed through the decrees of originalism. She and other originalists take umbrage in the fact that, presumably, no one would try to argue against <em>Brown</em> now. In other words, since the question of segregating schools would never actually reach the Supreme Court, there is just no reason to worry about it. And so Justices like Coney Barrett and Gorsuch see <em>Brown</em> as a sort of super-precedent that could never be successfully argued against in court.</p> <p> </p> <p>But this is an easy out, and also a convenient one. Segregation is plain wrong and unacceptabel, and so it is easy to “bend” the rules a little to allow schools to be desegregated. But when the question is same-sex marriage, or even just consensual same-sex intimacy, then the best thing to do is to <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/06/26/scalia-warned-in-lawrence-v-texas-dissent-that-striking-down-sodomy-laws-would-lead-to-gay-marriage" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">contemplate</a> a piece of text and donnishly point out that it doesn’t mention same-sex marriage at all and it must therefore be unconstitutional. This is a layman’s outlook of the issue, to be sure, but it still serves to highlight how sometimes we should in fact question the morals and ethics of our laws.</p> <p> </p> <p>Just like school segregation was lawful but unjust, so should we be able to look at other societal issues and gauge whether vague laws that were written over two centuries ago by men who owned other people are indeed fair. Justices can infer that the Constitution meant “armed forces” when it explicitly listed only an “Army and a Navy” as being under control of Congress; why can’t they infer that when the Constitution says that marriage is “between a man and a woman” surely what it means to say is that marriage is a civil pact between two consenting adults. The fact that marriage is “defined” in the Constitution is why Justice Scalia argued against same-sex marriage. In his view, there was no jurisdictional path he could have taken to interpret what the writers of the Constitution actually meant when defining marriage; or, at least, not in the same way that justifies the existence of an Air Force, I suppose.</p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/5supremecourt_steve_petteway-supremecourtdotgov.jpg" style="height:600px; width:480px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>It is this same argumentative viewpoint of legality and fairness that originalists use to call into <a href="https://thebaffler.com/latest/originalism-is-dumb-hartman" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">question</a> the <em>Roe v. Wade</em> decision. It’s why there are still lawsuits making their way up to the Supreme Court that seek to overturn <em>Obergefell</em> and <em>Roe v. Wade</em>. And this is a slippery slope because in its quest to “limit” judicial power, originalism places the burden of slow progress in the hands of the people while erroneously assuming that everyone has equal representation in Congress. In other words, originalists like Scalia argued that he, for one, wasn’t necessarily <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">opposed</a> to same-sex marriage, since the Court should strive to make all decisions apolitical anyway; but rather that the question of the legality of same-sex marriage should have been left in the hands of the people. If the people decide that something should be the law of the land, the Congress that represents them can then carry out those wishes.</p> <p> </p> <p>This, again, in theory should not pose a problem. In fact, we have seen it in action when we have states like New York and California that allowed same-sex marriage before the federal government did and that have more lenient abortion laws than other conservative states. But this hands-off approach is a wistful assumption that everyone can equally participate in the democratic process and so, eventually, the will of the people will prevail.</p> <p> </p> <p>But in 2013 the Supreme Court itself infamously <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">struck</a> down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and now Republican states are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/15/supreme-courts-voting-rights-act-case-could-gut-civil-rights-protections-then-what/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">enacting</a> over 250 laws that make it harder for people to enforce their right to vote. These laws are nothing new, but they will now be more difficult to challenge. Laws that blatantly target Black voters, and Native American voters, and poor voters.  And so for these minority groups, it must seems like a bit of a parody for the highest court of the land to effectively say that if people don’t like a law, they change it by voting like-minded representatives into Congress, while at the same time allowing states to enact laws that make it harder to vote.</p> <p> </p> <p>After Democrat Heidi Heitkamp was marginally <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/31/18047922/north-dakota-voter-id-suppression-heitkamp" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">voted</a> into Congress with the substantive help of Native American voters, the Republican-controlled state legislature moved to pass laws that made it more difficult <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/heidi-heitkamp-native-americans-vote-north-dakota/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">specifically</a> for Native Americans to vote: they required an ID that explicitly notes a street address, which had never before been a requisite, with full knowledge that many Native Americans live in reservations that don’t have street addresses. Heitkamp then lost her reelection. Lawmakers in <a href="https://apnews.com/article/senate-elections-bills-legislation-elections-georgia-842d9ad16a78901322f4b952f6c0d8dd" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">Georgia</a> are enacting laws that make it more difficult specifically for Black voters to exercise their democratic right. Mail-in voting is being challenged all throughout the country. It is disingenuous, for anyone but specially for judges, to think that the will of the people is being carried out when a large swath of the population is not given the rightful access to the democratic process that originalism purports to support and protect. Just like it is disingenuous to think that every decision the Court makes must be apolitical - for everyone else on the ground, every decision can be nothing but political.</p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/4supremecourt_stevemasker-creativecommons.jpg" style="height:400px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>The complete opposite of originalism has its faults too, certainly. This is what is commonly <a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-antonin-scalia-038ec1d4de30d1bd97a0ce3823903f0c" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">known</a> as having a “living Constitution,” one that evolves as society changes around it. This is what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg argued for and what Justice Scalia fully rejected. Certainly, judicial overreach can be a big problem, and there should be a way to limit the power of judges, especially of those in lifetime appointments. In fact, some argue that it is preferable to have an originalist on the bench who will at least be constricted within a jurisprudential framework rather than a wildcard conservative wielding their judicial lawmaking powers all across the land.</p> <p> </p> <p>But sometimes it is necessary to have a moral voice of reason; a person to see that because the word “sex” was not explicitly included in the Voting Rights Act as a basis of discrimination, that didn’t mean that women should not be allowed to vote (Scalia famously <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/520891-amy-coney-barrett-the-cruel-irony-of-a-female-originalist" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">argued</a> that, in fact, the 14<sup>th</sup> Amendment does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex because when it was written, people did not actually think that women should be treated equally). To see that disability laws are unfair to disabled people and they are not equally and democratically represented in Congress. Or maybe just to see that a woman’s right to choose has nothing to do with “due privacy” (on which <em>Roe v. Wade</em> is based on) and everything to do with women being rational human beings.</p> <p> </p> <p>As it goes, democracy is the worst kind of government except for all the others. A similar sentiment can be applied when it comes to judicial ethics and judicial powers. We shouldn’t just rely on the conscience of a person when it comes to our liberties and hope they do they right thing. But we also shouldn’t limit the ethical and moral necessity of striking down unfair and unjust laws -- certainly not under the guise of a jurisdictional dogma that veils itself as the protector of the law, when what it mostly achieves is stump on progress.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Angelo Franco is</em> Highbrow Magazine’s <em>chief features writer.</em></strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>For Highbrow Magazine</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Image Sources:</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><em>--</em><a href="https://search.creativecommons.org/photos/24bb917a-5ff4-4fc9-b801-6452a5e2958a" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><em>Motiqua</em></a><em> (Creative Commons)</em></p> <p><em>--</em><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><em>SupremeCourt.gov</em></a><em> (Creative Commons)</em></p> <p><em>--</em><a href="https://search.creativecommons.org/photos/87ebd3f0-8360-4c4d-9e57-6be0e739d626" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><em>Steve Masker</em></a><em> (Creative Commons)</em></p> <p><em>--</em><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg_2016_portrait.jpg" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><em>Steve Petteway</em></a><em> (SupremeCourt.gov, Creative Commons)</em></p> <p><em>--</em><a href="https://www.pikist.com/free-photo-srrsf" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><em>Pikist</em></a><em> (Creative Commons)</em></p> <p><em>--</em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_Right_My_Decision_rally_United_States_Supreme_Court_(March_4,_2020)_05.jpg" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><em>Rep. Carbajal</em></a><em> (Wikipedia, Creative Commons)</em></p> <p> </p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/originalism" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">originalism</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court-justices" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court Justices</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/amy-barrett-cohen" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">amy barrett cohen</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/antonin-scalia" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">antonin scalia</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/ruth-bader-ginsburg" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">ruth bader ginsburg</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/sonia-sotomayor" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">sonia sotomayor</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/chief-justice-roberts" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">chief justice roberts</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/originalists" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">originalists</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/constitution-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">constitution</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/law-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">the law</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Angelo Franco</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:07:33 +0000 tara 10242 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/12000-supreme-court-and-ongoing-debate-about-originalism#comments All Eyes Are on Supreme Court Over Fate of Voting Rights Act https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2209-all-eyes-are-supreme-court-over-fate-voting-rights-act <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Tue, 02/26/2013 - 08:56</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumsupremecourt_0.jpg?itok=wQEaV5PC"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumsupremecourt_0.jpg?itok=wQEaV5PC" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/next-battle-over-the-voting-rights-act-supreme-court.php">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Editor’s note:</strong> <em>The last major challenge to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) took place ahead of last November's election, when a spate of states passed voter ID laws that would have thrown up barriers for minorities at the polls. Pushback—vigilance and mobilization—by voting and civil rights groups, however, thwarted those efforts to undermine the VRA, with some states seeing a record number of Latinos and African Americans voters at the polls. The next battle over the Voting Rights Act is moving to the Supreme Court, writes NAM contributor Earl Ofari Hutchinson.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> One of the GOP’s fondest wishes has been to kill the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Twice it floated several trial balloons in Congress. The first one was in 1981 when the Act came up for renewal. The deal in the initial passage of the Act was that it be renewed every 25 years.</p> <p>  </p> <p> A few hardline ultraconservatives in the administration of then President Reagan administration made some loud threats to push Reagan to oppose its renewal. They were just that, idle threats. Reagan with no fanfare signed the renewal legislation.</p> <p>  </p> <p> However, the threats were a forewarning of things to come. When the Act came up for renewal again in 2006, the threats to thwart the law, turned into a mini-movement in Congress to delay or even block passage. A pack of House Republicans stalled the legislation for more than a week and demanded that hearings be held.</p> <p>  </p> <p> They used the same old argument that it punishes the South for past voting discrimination sins, and they didn't like the idea of bilingual ballots. Bush signed the renewal order. But the GOP had served notice that the early saber rattle against the act was a just a warm-up for a full throttle frontal assault. The GOP pecked at eroding the Act with the rash of photo identifications laws that the GOP governors and GOP-controlled state legislatures enacted in recent years. The aim was to discourage and damp down the number of minority and poor voters that overwhelmingly vote Democratic.</p> <p>  </p> <p> It backfired. Black and Hispanic voters thumbed their noses at the GOP vote suppression ploys and packed the voting booths again in mass numbers in 2012. The 2012 presidential election result was the final tipping point for the GOP. Though it maintained its tight grip on the five Deep South states, and other Old Confederacy states, almost exclusively with the majority votes of white conservatives, the increased number of black and Hispanics in the states poses a mortal threat to continued GOP dominance in those states, that is if there are no barriers propped up to their registering and voting.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The GOP’s hoped-for trump card to stave that off as long as possible is the Supreme Court. The conservatives on the court read the election tea leaves and three days after President Obama’s re-election announced that they would take up a challenge to the Act. They dropped strong hints that they may well vote to gut the Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy said he was troubled by the provisions.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Chief Justice John Roberts bluntly said that things have changed in the South and that blacks supposedly vote everywhere in the South without any barriers or prohibitions. Clarence Thomas, to no surprise, went even further and flatly called Section 5 of the Act unconstitutional and left no doubt if and when he had the chance he’d knock the Act out completely.</p> <p> <img alt="" src="/sites/default/files/mediumlbjvotingrights%20%28Wiki%20LBJLibrary%29.jpg" style="width: 600px; height: 401px;" /></p> <p>  </p> <p> The hook is the federal lawsuit by Shelby County, Alabama that claims the Act is outdated, discriminatory, and a blatant federal intrusion into state’s rights. The lawsuit explicitly wants the centerpiece of the Act, Section 5, dumped. This is the provision that mandates that states get “preclearance” from the Justice Department before making any changes in voting procedures. State attorneys general in several states have endorsed the Alabama County’s challenge.</p> <p>  </p> <p> The claims that the Act is a waste since blacks and Hispanics vote whenever and wherever they please is nonsense. Even though black and Hispanic voters did vote in big numbers in the 2012 election, in many districts they still had to stand in endless lines, have their IDs thoroughly scrutinized, had no bilingual ballots, found voting hours shortened, and had to file legal challenges in state and federal courts to get injunctions to stop the more onerous of the voter suppression laws from being enforced.</p> <p>  </p> <p> This was only part of the story of the roadblocks the GOP has thrown up. A study by the Alliance for Justice, a Washington DC-based public interest group documented legions of complaints and challenges filed by the Justice Department and voting rights groups to discriminatory changes that county registrars have made to eliminate or narrow down the number of voters in predominantly minority districts.</p> <p>  </p> <p> There was never any real threat that Congress would have dared done away with the Act despite the GOP’s harsh warnings and wishes. But the action of many state officials, attorneys general and now the Supreme Court that threaten the Act is a grave warning that the GOP may finally get its fond wish. And that’s to gut, if not outright end, the Voting Rights Act.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour heard weekly on the nationally network broadcast Hutchinson Newsmaker Network.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2013/02/next-battle-over-the-voting-rights-act-supreme-court.php">New America Media</a></p> <p>  </p> <p> <em><strong>Photos: New America Media; Wikipedia Commons-LBJ Library.</strong></em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/voting-rights-act" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Voting Rights Act</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/shelby-county" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">shelby county</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/ronald-reagan" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Ronald Reagan</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/clarence-thomas" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">clarence thomas</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court-justices" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court Justices</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/civil-rights" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">civil rights</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/lyndon-johnson" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Lyndon Johnson</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/lbj" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">LBJ</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Earl Ofari Hutchinson </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:56:00 +0000 tara 2433 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/2209-all-eyes-are-supreme-court-over-fate-voting-rights-act#comments Fate of Affirmative Action Rests on Supreme Court Decision https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1546-fate-affirmative-action-rests-supreme-court-decision <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 15:59</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumsupremecourt%20%28SEB%29.jpg?itok=W7JfgcfG"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumsupremecourt%20%28SEB%29.jpg?itok=W7JfgcfG" width="480" height="360" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p>  </p> <p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/09/fate-of-affirmative-action-hangs-on-fisher-v-texas.php">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Editor’s Note:</strong> <em>On October 10 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear</em> Fisher v. University of Texas, <em>a case that could upend affirmative action policies nationwide. The plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, is suing the state over her rejection for admission into the University of Texas, which considers race in allotting a percentage of available seats after the top 10 percent of high school seniors are admitted. Fisher, who is white, did not place in the top 10 percent. She contends the race-based portion of the institution’s admission policy is a violation of her constitutional rights. Veteran education reporter Scott Jaschik spoke with New America Media’s Khalil Abdullah on the potential ramifications of the hearing and what it could mean for minority college students across the country. Jaschik was the editor of the </em>Chronicle of Higher Education <em>from 1999 to 2003 before co-founding</em> Inside Higher Ed, <em>where he now serves as editor.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>How will this decision affect college admissions policies throughout the country?</strong></p> <p> <strong>Scott Jaschik:</strong> I think this will have a large impact in different ways. There are places like the University of Texas, other flagship universities and also elite private universities that consider race in admissions. These institutions are very hard to get into, places that typically make their admissions decisions based – in large part – on test scores and course grades. On average -- and it’s very important to say on average because there are exceptions to this -- if they eliminated the consideration of race, most of these institutions would admit fewer black, Latino, and Native American students. Many of them might see an increase in Asian-American students. In fact, when affirmative action was eliminated in California, there were initial spikes in Asian-American enrollments more so than white enrolments.</p> <p>  </p> <p> So, first of all, the decision will be important for the highly competitive admission institutions, but it [may have] other impacts. It could well affect the way many colleges, and not just the elite institutions, administer financial aid or how their summer programs operate.</p> <p>  </p> <p>  <strong>Could you give an example of how a financial aid formula might be affected?</strong></p> <p> <strong>Jaschik:</strong> Scholarships that are based on income level are race-neutral and wouldn’t be affected, but some campuses have scholarships in which race and ethnicity are considered for certain awards, and you also have some summer programs and outreach programs that use race as a criteria.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>How else could a ruling upholding the suit change a school’s demographics?</strong></p> <p> <strong>Jaschik:</strong> There were very interesting briefs filed with the Supreme Court by community colleges, for example. At first glance, you would say, community colleges are open admissions, so why would they be concerned? But community colleges want some of their students to transfer into flagship universities. In that process, race and ethnicity are sometimes considered ... If affirmative action is radically scaled back, some [non-flagship] institutions might see an increase in black and Latino students. The impact of the court’s decision could really be quite broad, but we don’t know what the court will do.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>What’s your sense of where court is headed?</strong></p> <p> <strong>Jaschik:</strong> Most experts think the current court isn’t generally sympathetic to affirmative action. The court could scale affirmative back partially or fully. If it’s a decision that drives a major change in current policies and the colleges start to adjust accordingly, there will probably be more lawsuits and court decisions. I think the ramifications of this decision could be quite dramatic over a period of time.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>What is some of the possible fallout given the court’s timing in hearing this case?</strong></p> <p> <strong>Jaschik:</strong> Because this case is going to be argued in October, in the middle of a presidential election … you’ll see a lot of campus debates. Generally when affirmative action becomes a hot issue, it can create difficulties for minority students on campuses who feel that people are raising questions about whether they are welcomed there or not, or whether they deserve to be there or not. If the court rules against Texas, anyone who has been admitted [under the current policy] wouldn’t be kicked out, and remember that not all of the minority students on that campus were admitted under affirmative action criteria. But it could be a very difficult time for people who are already on campuses.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>With Justice Kagan recused from this case, what’s your read on the eight justices who will be voting?</strong></p> <p> <strong>Jaschik:</strong> A tie vote would mean that the University of Texas wins, but a tie doesn’t have the same precedential value as a majority five-three decision. Likely to back Texas would be Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. I think these three are fairly safe predictions. As the court’s health care decision shows, you can never be sure what’s going to happen. Nobody expected Justice Roberts to be the savior of Obama’s health care. So you don’t want to say you can be sure, but if you look at what the justices have written in the past, the remaining justices are skeptical of affirmative action. Sometimes people vote for what they’re skeptical of, but one of those five would have to change for Texas to win [by getting a four-four vote].</p> <p>  </p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>If Texas loses the suit, what might be some short-term outcomes?</strong></p> <p> <strong>Jaschik:</strong> State universities would have to look to other approaches if they wanted to get a decent number of minority students. Some advocates of race neutral policies urge using economic status as an alternative. You could give a preference to a low-income student. This would still be legal if the Supreme Court said you couldn’t do affirmative action admissions. You’d get some black and Latino students and the benefit would also go to low-income white and Asian students. But I think most colleges would say that this approach and others would not add up to the level of diversity they have now.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/09/fate-of-affirmative-action-hangs-on-fisher-v-texas.php">New America Media</a></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/affirmative-action" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">affirmative action</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/fisher-v-university-texas" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">fisher v university of texas</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/minority-students" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">minority students</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/discrimination" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">discrimination</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court-justices" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court Justices</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/education" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">education</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/college-students" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">college students</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Khalil Abdullah</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">SEB, Flickr -- Creative Commons</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Wed, 12 Sep 2012 19:59:10 +0000 tara 1543 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1546-fate-affirmative-action-rests-supreme-court-decision#comments By Striking Down Obamacare, Supreme Court Could Undermine Various Civil Rights Laws https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1070-striking-down-obamacare-supreme-court-could-undermine-various-civil-rights-laws <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 13:14</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumsupremecourt.jpg?itok=pqSeZE1o"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/mediumsupremecourt.jpg?itok=pqSeZE1o" width="480" height="268" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> From <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/news/">New America Media</a>:</p> <p>  </p> <p> WASHINGTON, D.C. — The primary issue before the U.S. Supreme Court this week, and one attracting most media discussion, is the debate over whether the federal government can compel people to buy a product, in this case health insurance.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But just as important is the secondary challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) expansion of Medicaid to cover million of currently uninsured, low-income people. If this is upended, it could flood the courts with legal challenges to a wide range of other laws on everything from environmental protection to civil rights.</p> <p>  </p> <p> A major aim of health care reform is to cover most uninsured people in the United States, about 50 million individuals. To do so, ACA would enroll almost a third of them in Medicaid, the federal-state program for Americans with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty line.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>ACA Could Cover 4 Million More Latinos</strong></p> <p> Although oral arguments on this issue are happening today, last month, the Obama administration presented the Supreme Court its brief defending the Medicaid expansion. It argued the government has long-standing authority to expand this federal program, as it has many times.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In support of ACA’s broadening of Medicaid, the National Health Law Program filed an amicus brief affirming this position on behalf of NCLR, AARP, the National Council on Aging and other health care reform advocates.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Like other parts of the high court’s health care reform case, a Medicaid decision against the administration could not only render the ACA unconstitutional, it could roll back other existing health coverage programs and undermine a slew of civil rights laws.</p> <p>  </p> <p> That’s because ACA’s opponents contend in their lawsuit that the law leaves states “no real choice” but to participate in Medicaid, including having to adhere to its minimum national standards for providing good health care. But many laws, such as civil rights statutes, already require states to meet federal requirements.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Medicaid is especially important to ethnic minorities. Right now, for example, the program provides crucial health insurance to more than 13 million Latinos, including half of all Latino children in the United States. If the percentage of Hispanic Medicaid participants remains constant, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, at least 4 million more will enroll under the ACA expansion by 2020.</p> <p>  </p> <p> This public program has always drawn low-income Latino families and those of other ethnic groups. And for states, Medicaid—which is voluntary for states -- is a bargain. If a state chooses to set up public health insurance for its poorest residents under Medicaid, the federal government pitches in at least half of the cost, and up to 83 percent for the poorest states.</p> <p>  </p> <p> States do even better with ACA. If states choose to participate in Medicaid, the expanded program would include everyone under 133 percent of the federal poverty level.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In addition, ACA would pay states 100 percent of the cost of new Medicaid enrollees through 2016, and then cover 95 percent in 2017, and 90 percent starting in 2020.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Wiggling Out of Consumer Protections</strong></p> <p> Rules requiring states to meet basic federal standards of access to and quality of care under Medicaid would still apply, of course. That’s always been true.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But 26 states are suing the federal government to reverse ACA, arguing that the program’s expansion is a constitutional tipping point. They assert in part that federal Medicaid funding has become so crucial to states’ budgets, expanding the program with so much funding to cover the new patients is too irresistible an option for states to turn down. Their lawsuit says ACA impermissibly “coerces” states to accept its terms because the funding is so generous.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Really, that’s part of their argument.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Put simply, states can’t just take the money and slash eligibility or benefits. The efforts of some states to wiggle out of consumer protections established in the Medicaid law are a not-so-subtle subtext of the “coercion” challenge. Were the court to declare the Medicaid expansion unconstitutional, it could damage the rest of the program as well. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Fortunately, 13 other states filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting ACA as an example of “cooperative federalism.” They want the Medicaid expansion and the support it will bring.</p> <p>  </p> <p> But an unfavorable ruling on ACA’s expansion of Medicaid could open the door to similar attempts to pick apart civil rights laws that have ensured protections for vulnerable groups.</p> <p>  </p> <p> In prohibiting discrimination, the federal government has long asserted its authority to set terms on the use of its money. Some examples are racial- and national-origin discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, disability discrimination in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Discrimination and Women’s Final Four</strong></p> <p> And, arguably, would sportscasters even be reporting this week on the Final Four in women’s college basketball were it not for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972?</p> <p>  </p> <p> State universities often complain about strings attached to the federal funding they receive -- particularly those that bar sex discrimination under Title IX.</p> <p>  </p> <p> A reversal of ACA’s Medicaid expansion, if the court agrees it is coercive, could subject Title IX --perhaps the most direct federal-state partnership comparable to Medicaid—to court challenges. States would likely claim that in periods of economic austerity they would have to cut crucial education funding in order to field both men’s and women’s teams. Given their past challenges to Title IX, it isn’t a stretch to see how they’ll glom onto a coercion decision on Medicaid.</p> <p>  </p> <p> Historically, without federal powers to nudge state behavior, the arc of the moral universe gets even farther away from justice. At the end of the day, the unraveling of the post-New Deal or civil rights eras won’t be inevitable with a decision that strikes down the ACA. But the Supreme Court would certainly have been offered up means to that end.</p> <p>  </p> <p> This Supreme Court case is bigger than Medicaid, the individual mandate, or even health care reform. If the administration loses this case, it loses a huge part of its ability to enforce states’ equal protection of their residents. For vulnerable minorities, that could lead to a very different America than the one we know now.</p> <p>  </p> <p> <strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p> <em>Sergio Eduardo Muñoz is a senior policy analyst at the National Council of La Raza’s Health Policy Project, Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation.</em></p> <p>  </p> <p> <a href="http://newamericamedia.org/2012/03/could-supreme-court-weaken-civil-rights-via-health-law-decision-on-medicaid.php">New America Media</a></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/obamacare" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Obamacare</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/supreme-court-justices" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Supreme Court Justices</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/medicaid" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">medicaid</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/affordable-care-act" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Affordable Care Act</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/obama" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/civil-rights" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">civil rights</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Sergio Eduardo Munoz</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-photographer field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Photographer:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">New America Media</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:14:58 +0000 tara 703 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/1070-striking-down-obamacare-supreme-court-could-undermine-various-civil-rights-laws#comments