Judicial Sham[e]

I did not think it was possible for a court to be as political and partisan as the Rehnquist court was, but the Roberts’ court has demonstrated beyond all doubt that it is every bit as political and partisan and even less ethical. In fact it is considered an anomaly whenever the Roberts’ Court renders a reasonable, impartial decision on any issue that might have an impact on either of the major political parties. Some people have tried to explain the surprise decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act by saying that Chief Justice Roberts wants very much to avoid the perception that his court has been politicized. If that is true, than Mr. Roberts is unbelievably stupid. He has already demonstrated how politicized he is far too often. Now he has written the majority opinion in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, in which he tries to explain and justify the court’s decision to invalidate the most effective part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, thereby greatly reducing the protection against voter suppression.

Our country has changed,” Chief Injustice Roberts wrote. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

What? Did this dullard sleep through the GOP’s attempts at voter suppression during the elections of 2012? One would expect such clap trap from Injustices Thomas and Scalia, who are unethical enough to hear cases in which they have apparent conflicts of interest, but such an opinion coming from someone who claims to be concerned about the image of the court is downright bizarre. In this case his reasoning, if you can call it that, is a shameful sham! He simply ignores all of the evidence showing that states that fell under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act are still trying to suppress the vote of minorities. The consequences of this are all too apparent. Texas, which had been barred from implementing a draconian voter identification law to suppress the vote of blacks and latinos in 2012, gave us the best example of those consequences by promptly reinstating that law the moment the court rendered its decision.

This horrible decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder is not an act of judicial activism as some have said. Judicial activism is a pejorative term reactionaries use to disparage the practice of righting wrongs by overturning well established but unjust precedents. Instead of being judicial activism this decision is an act of judicial re-activism. It is a return to a shameful past and a direct attack on the fifteenth amendment. Like Plessy v. Ferguson, Shelby County v. Holder shall have its place in judicial infamy, as will Citizens United and so many other truly terrible decisions rendered by this Supreme Court.

Saying that congress can redefine who falls under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is stating a near impossibility. Given the filibuster in the Senate and the fact that the Republicans control the House of Representatives you stand a better chance of catching a meteorite with a butterfly net. Let’s face it, the Republican Party has become the party of angry, often racist, old white men, and voter suppression is the desperate tactic of a minority party that has painted itself into a corner by selling a dark and paranoid prophesy to people who are already afraid of a democracy in which they no longer constitute the majority. Messrs Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy would have to be deaf, blind and stupid to be ignorant of those facts. Deaf, blind and stupid is the best thing we can conclude about those Injustices because the alternative conclusion is that they are putting the interests of a political party and a minority of our citizens ahead of the most fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution and by every democracy.