Law

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Why are rightwingers so opposed to a Black woman supreme court nominee? | Thomas Zimmer

      by

      Why are US rightwingers so opposed to a Black woman supreme court nominee?Thomas ZimmerThe right’s alarmed reaction to Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to the supreme court reveals the conservative siege mentality When Joe Biden publicly pledged to nominate a Black woman to the US supreme court, conservative politicians, activists, and intellectuals certainly didn’t try to hide their disdain. The announcement was “offensive,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz argued, proof that the President didn’t care about 94% of Americans (everyone who is not a Black woman); and even though it’s unclear who the candidate will be, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker already knows he won’t support this affirmative action “beneficiary.” Tucker Carlson railed against Biden’s “casual racism,” and the conservative legal establishment also vowed to fight against this “lesser Black woman,” as Ilya Shapiro, the vice president of the Cato Institute, put it. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, finally, bemoaned “exclusionary criteria of race and sex” – which apparently is a problem only if and when they result in the selection of someone who is *not* a white man. Let’s remember: 115 people have been appointed to the court in its 232-year existence – seven have not been white men. Seven.Biden to nominate first Black woman to sit on supreme court by end of FebruaryRead moreThis rather alarmed response tells us a lot about how the right views the political conflict, precisely because it is seemingly at odds with the fact that the conservative majority on the court is not in jeopardy. Any assessment of these reactions must start by recognizing their racist and sexist nature. They are revealing precisely because they were so reflexive, so visceral. Misogynoir – anti-Black misogyny – forms the basis of this conservative scorn.But there is something else on display here too. A Black woman replacing Justice Breyer won’t change the court’s arithmetic. And yet, conservatives still feel threatened by Biden’s announcement because they understand it symbolizes the recognition that having white men dominate the powerful institutions of American life is a problem – and that rectifying this imbalance is an urgent task. They reject the notion that the country’s institutions should reflect the composition of the people; they know representation matters, and that a Black woman ascending to a position like this is also an acknowledgment of past injustice.Conservatives see Biden’s announcement as an indication of how powerful the forces of liberalism, “wokeism,” and multiculturalism – those radically “Un-American” ideas that are threatening “real” (read: white Christian patriarchal) America – have already become. In this way, Biden’s pledge is perceived as yet more evidence that the Right is on the retreat. It is impossible to understand conservative politics in general without grappling with this pervasive siege mentality.The fact that a reactionary majority will dominate the supreme court for a generation doesn’t do much to alleviate these fears. The Right doesn’t look at the Court in isolation, but considers the judiciary as part of an all-encompassing conflict over the fate of America. And conservatives understand clearly that this conflict isn’t confined to the political realm, but plays out in all areas of American life: it defines politics, society, culture – and in some of these spheres, conservatives are indeed losing.The Right is reacting to something real: due to political, cultural, and demographic changes, the country has indeed become less white, less conservative, less Christian. The balance of political power doesn’t (yet) reflect that, as the US system has many undemocratic distortions and is deliberately set up in a way that disconnects these changing demographic and cultural realities from political power. But conservatives realize that their vision for American society has come under pressure.Nothing symbolized this threat to white dominance like Barack Obama’s presidency – an outrageous subversion of what reactionaries understand as America’s natural order, made worse by the fact that the first Black president managed to get re-elected with less than 40% of the white vote. Republicans are attempting to undermine democracy because they are under no illusion about the lack of majority support for their preferred version of “real” America.The fact remains that conservatives have secured a stable majority on the supreme court, thereby guaranteeing that the court will support the reactionary political project. But it is not just political power they seek, but cultural domination and affirmation. In the cultural sphere, the shift in power away from white conservatives has been more pronounced, leading to the recurring rightwing moral panics of recent years.The freak-outs over #MeToo, “cancel culture” and “wokeism” are reactions to the fact that traditionally marginalized groups have indeed gained enough political and cultural influence to make their claims heard and demand a modicum of respect. It has traditionally been the prerogative of a white male elite to determine what is and what is not acceptable in US society. That prerogative has come under fire, and it’s not something the judiciary can fully restore.It’s important to note that it’s really more the potential of losing privilege that is animating these reactionary panics. In practice, the traditional power structures have held up mostly fine. But still, the privileged status of white men has never been under more scrutiny. Put simply, being a member of the white male elite is slightly less comfortable today than it used to be.Against this broader background, conservatives understand Biden’s announcement as evidence that the dreaded forces responsible for the general assault on white male rule keep ascending within America’s institutions. Whether or not it has any immediate effect on the supreme court’s decisions, for a movement centered around the idea that America is a white Christian patriarchal nation, a place where white Christian men have a Right to dominate, a Black woman rising remains a threat.President Biden’s public pledge to nominate a Black woman to the supreme court represents an affirmation of multiracial pluralism. That’s why it matters. It’s an acknowledgment that the traditional dominance of white men was never the result of meritocratic structures, but of a discriminatory system, and that it’s time to dismantle that system. It will help redefine what the American political, social, and cultural elite looks like – reshaping ideas in the collective imaginary of the nation of who gets to be at the top. As multiracial, pluralistic democracy is under assault, that matters a lot.
      Thomas Zimmer is a visiting professor at Georgetown University, focused on the history of democracy and its discontents in the United States, and a Guardian US contributing opinion writer
      TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS supreme courtRaceLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Cancel culture is real but it’s not the ‘woke mob’ you should worry about | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Cancel culture is real but it’s not the ‘woke mob’ you should worry aboutArwa MahdawiBooks deemed anti-church or containing LGBTQ issues are being banned across the US at a terrifying rate by the conservative right Hello, my name is Arwa Mahdawi and I would like to cancel myself, please. I have a book to sell, you see, and it would seem that the easiest way to drum up a lot of free publicity these days is to declare yourself the latest victim of cancel culture. Suddenly everyone is inviting you on the telly to wax on about how you’ve been cruelly silenced by the woke mob. “Nobody can say anything any more!” the usual pundits lament in their 972nd piece on whether cancel culture has gone too far. “Free speech is dead! It’s just like Nineteen Eighty-Four!”I don’t know if Big Brother is going to let me share this, but I have something terribly shocking to tell you about cancel culture. Here we go: you should definitely be worried, but it’s not the woke mob you need to be worried about. A depressing amount of energy is being expended on arguing whether calling someone out for using language a lot of people perceive as bigoted is “cancel culture”. But, while endless arguments rage about the intolerant left, free speech is under a terrifying assault from the right.Want to know what real cancel culture looks like? Well, just sit back and look at the unprecedented surge of book banning efforts happening across the United States. Last year, for example, a county prosecutor’s office considered charging library employees in a conservative Wyoming city for stocking books about sex education and containing LGBTQ themes. Around the same time, Moms for Liberty, a rightwing advocacy group, tried to get a number of books banned from Tennessee schools because they contained content that disturbed them. They deemed a book about Galileo to be “anti-church”, and were outraged that a book about Martin Luther King contained “photographs of political violence”.More recently, a school board in Tennessee banned Maus, Art Spiegelman’sPulitzer prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, from its classrooms. Their reasoning? It contained eight swear words and a picture of a naked cartoon mouse. Yep, you read that right. What upset these people most about a book detailing how Jewish people were gassed to death in concentration camps by Nazis were some curse words.Let’s be clear: there is nothing particularly novel about uptight school boards in conservative areas getting worked up over material they deem offensive. However, what is happening in the US at the moment is a lot scarier than a few over-involved parents clutching their pearls over naked mice. As the American Library Association noted last year, there has been a “dramatic uptick in book challenges and outright removal of books from libraries.” The free-speech organisation, PEN America, has voiced similar concerns. “It’s a pretty startling phenomenon here in the United States to see book bans back in style, to see efforts to press criminal charges against school librarians,” the organisation’s chief executive recently told the New York Times.It’s not just school boards trying to police what kids can read about: it’s politicians, too. Last year, Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, introduced proposed legislation that would let parents sue schools for teaching critical race theory to kids. To be cute, he called this the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (W.O.K.E) Act. Now, Florida is trying to pass a bill that critics have nicknamed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which would let parents sue schools or teachers who bring up topics related to sexual orientation and gender identity. (Just a little reminder to everyone that DeSantis loves describing Florida as a beacon of freedom, in what he deems to be an increasingly authoritarian America.)In an interview with the Washington Post last week, Spiegelman warned that what is happening now should be seen as a “red alert”. Maus being banned was no anomaly, but “part of a continuum, and just a harbinger of things to come”. What can I say? If it’s the “woke mob” that scares you after all this, then you must be fast asleep.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsCensorshipOpinionFreedom of speechLibrariesUS politicsLGBT rightsReligioncommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Battered Biden gets chance to change political narrative as Breyer retires

      by

      Battered Biden gets chance to change political narrative as Breyer retiresAnalysis: president faces high expectations as he prepares make one of his most consequential decisions In his spare time, Justice Stephen Breyer enjoyed taking the bench at humorous “mock trials” of characters such as Macbeth and Richard III for Washington’s Shakespeare Theatre Company. The case usually turned on epic battles over succession.Now Washington is about to be consumed by the question of who will inherit Breyer’s crown following his reported decision to retire from the US supreme court. At 83, he is its oldest member, one of three liberals outnumbered by six conservatives.This is a perfectly timed political gift for Joe Biden, aware that choosing a supreme court justice is one of the most consequential decisions that any president can make.After a year in the White House, Biden was limping with a stalled legislative agenda, a tenacious pandemic and Vladimir Putin threatening Ukraine. He was a tired brand in desperate need of a relaunch, a tough ask at the age of 79.Biden ‘stands by’ pledge to nominate Black woman to supreme court, White House says – liveRead moreBreyer has provided it, instantly changing the conversation. “This has to feel like a political elixir right now,” observed Chuck Todd, host of MSNBC’s Meet the Press Daily show.A vacancy on the highest court enables Biden to rally the Democratic base and begin to cement a legacy that, despite early ambitions, had recently looked to be in jeopardy. Although the ideological balance of the court will not change, Biden could choose a young liberal who will serve for decades.The Senate, which must approve his choice, is divided between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans with Vice-President Kamala Harris casting the tiebreaker vote. Breyer has given it enough time to confirm the president’s pick before the midterm elections could shift the balance of power.Democratic divisions have been on display of late but a supreme court vacancy typically unites a party like nothing else. Even senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who broke ranks over the Build Back Better plan and voting rights, have voted for every Biden nominee to the lower courts so far. Both will presumably regard this confirmation as an easy way to win back some favour with angry liberals.Not for the first time, however, Biden has raised expectations. At a debate in the 2020 Democratic primary, he declared: “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the supreme court, to make sure we, in fact, get every representation.” His judicial appointments so far have been historically diverse, and Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters after the news of Breyer’s imminent retirement broke that Biden “certainly stands by” his promise.The upshot is that if he now nominates anyone other than a Black woman, there will be disappointment on the left. Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive group Stand Up America, said on Wednesday: “President Biden promised to appoint the country’s first-ever Black woman supreme court justice, and he must make good on that promise.“The president and vice-president’s voters are watching eagerly to see that he follows through and makes history with his first supreme court nomination.”Potential candidates include the US circuit judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California supreme court justice Leondra Kruger, civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill and US district judge Michelle Childs, a favourite of the South Carolina congressman James Clyburn, a Biden ally.Notably, when Jackson was confirmed last year to the influential US court of appeals for the DC circuit, often seen as a springboard to supreme court, the Republican senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted with Democrats in favour.Carl Tobias, Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond, said: “I expect that the Democrats will remain united, as they have so far, because all Democratic members, including Senators Manchin and Sinema, have voted for all of Biden’s lower court nominees.“Most GOP senators have voted against many Biden lower court nominees. The major exception is Lindsey Graham, who has voted for many Biden lower court nominees in committee and on the floor. Senators Collins and Murkowski have also voted to confirm a number of Biden lower court nominees. If the Democrats vote together, they do not need GOP votes.”It remains an open question whether a handful of Republicans might back Biden’s nominee given the politicisation of the court in recent years – from Republicans blocking Barack Obama’s pick Merrick Garland to the rancour that surrounded Donald Trump’s three appointments, and the court’s imminent decision on the constitutional right to abortion.In an ominous statement on Wednesday, Graham said: “If all Democrats hang together – which I expect they will – they have the power to replace Justice Breyer in 2022 without one Republican vote in support. Elections have consequences, and that is most evident when it comes to fulfilling vacancies on the supreme court.”Don’t call Joe Biden a failed president yet | Gary GerstleRead moreMeanwhile, Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, fired the first shots of a partisan battle to come. “The left bullied Justice Breyer into retirement and now it will demand a justice who rubber-stamps its liberal political agenda,” she said. “And that’s what the Democrats will give them, because they’re beholden to the dark money supporters who helped elect them.”Yet it is Republicans who waged a multi-generational project to tilt the court in their favour with the help of the Federalist Society, which created a pipeline of young, ideologically rightwing lawyers. Trump’s release during the 2016 election of a shortlist of judges for the court helped him secure the conservative base; his three justices are likely to be his most lasting legacy.Democrats were criticised for being slow to wake up to the threat and lacking similar aggression. Now, thanks to Breyer’s retirement, they find themselves with the unaccustomed comfort of having political momentum on their side.TopicsJoe BidenUS supreme courtLaw (US)DemocratsRepublicansUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme court rejects Trump bid to shield documents from January 6 panel

      by

      Supreme court rejects Trump bid to shield documents from January 6 panelCourt’s move leaves no legal impediment to turning National Archives documents over to congressional committee The US supreme court has rejected a request by Donald Trump to block the release of White House records to the congressional committee investigating the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol, dealing a blow to the former president.The order, which casts aside Trump’s request to stop the House select committee from obtaining the records while the case makes its way through the courts, means more than 700 documents that could shed light on the attack can be transferred to Congress.The only member of the high court who signaled he would have granted Trump’s request for an injunction was justice Clarence Thomas. The order did not provide a reasoning for turning down the application, which is not uncommon for requests for emergency stays.Trump’s defeat in court allows the select committee to obtain from the National Archives some of the most sensitive White House records from his administration, including call logs, daily presidential diaries, handwritten notes and memos from his top aides.The documents, which Trump tried to shield behind claims of executive privilege, also included materials in the files of his former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, deputy counsel Pat Philbin and advisor Stephen Miller.“These records all relate to the events on or about January 6, and may assist the Select Committee’s investigation into that day,” justice department attorneys, acting on behalf of chief archivist David Ferriero, wrote in an earlier filing.The supreme court’s action, which follows the earlier rejection of Trump’s request by two lower courts, is also likely to have a cascading effect on other lawsuits filed against the panel, which hinged on the success of Trump’s pending litigation.Lawyers for Trump had urged the supreme court to take the case as they disagreed with the unanimous ruling of the US appeals court for the DC circuit that the current president Joe Biden could waive executive privilege over the objections of a former president.The lower court rulings directing the National Archives to turn over the records “gut the ability of former presidents to maintain executive privilege over the objection of an incumbent, who is often, as is the case here, a political rival”, they said.Trump’s legal team argued that the select committee also lacked a legitimate, legislative need for seeking the documents and was instead engaged in a partisan investigation seeking evidence to cause political damage to the former president.“These sweeping requests are indicative of the committee’s broad investigation of a political foe, divorced from any of Congress’s legislative functions,” Trump’s lawyers said of the panel.But in an unsigned opinion, the nation’s highest court rejected those arguments, upholding the appellate court ruling that found that although Trump had some limited power to exercise executive privilege, it was not sufficient to overcome Biden’s waiver.The court cited a 1977 supreme court decision in a dispute between former president Richard Nixon and the National Archives, which said the sitting president was in the best position to decide whether the protection should be asserted.The appeals court said that as long as the select committee could cite at least one legislative purpose for the documents – reforming laws to prevent a repeat of January 6, for instance – that would be enough to justify its request for Trumps’ records.The select committee has also rebutted Trump’s claim that forcing the National Archives to hand over White House documents could discourage future presidential aides from providing candid advice.That argument was misguided, the select committee said, because the conduct by Trump and some of his most senior aides under investigation went far beyond any usual deliberations concerning a president’s official duties.Moments after the supreme court handed down its decision, investigators working in the select committee’s offices on Capitol Hill were heard clapping in celebration, just as the panel subpoenaed more individuals connected to the January 6 insurrection.In its latest investigative action, the panel issued subpoenas to far-right Trump activists Nicholas Fuentes and Patrick Casey who received thousands of dollars in funds potentially connected to illegal activity and the Capitol attack.The new subpoenas demanding documents and testimony from Fuentes and Casey suggest the panel is drawing closer to the source of funding for the rallies that preceded the Capitol attack and the coordinated travel plans of thousands of pro-Trump rioters.Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the select committee, said that House investigators are interested in the pair since they were intimately involved in the transfer of money surrounding the Capitol attack and were present on Capitol grounds on January 6.The select committee said in the subpoena letters that Fuentes and Casey led the “America First” or “Groyper” movement and promulgated lies about voter fraud as they sought to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s election win and get Trump a second term.TopicsDonald TrumpUS supreme courtLaw (US)Trump administrationUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court blocks Biden’s workplace vaccine-or-test rules

      by

      US supreme court blocks Biden’s workplace vaccine-or-test rulesCourt says vaccine mandate for healthcare workers is validPresident to purchase another 550m at-home Covid tests The supreme court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses be vaccinated against Covid-19 or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask on the job.Sinema speaks out against filibuster reform after House sends voting rights bill to Senate – liveRead moreAt the same time, the court is allowing the administration to proceed with a vaccine mandate for most healthcare workers in the US.The court’s conservative majority concluded the administration overstepped its authority by seeking to impose the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Osha) vaccine-or-test rule on US businesses with at least 100 employees. More than 80 million people would have been affected.“Osha has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the Covid-19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what Osha has promulgated here,” the conservatives wrote in an unsigned opinion.In dissent, the court’s three liberals argued that it was the court that was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts. “Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the court displaces the judgments of the government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent.When crafting the Osha rule, White House officials always anticipated legal challenges – and privately some harbored doubts that it could withstand them. The administration nonetheless still views the rule as a success at already driving millions of people to get vaccinated and for private businesses to implement their own requirements that are unaffected by the legal challenge.Both rules had been challenged by Republican-led states. In addition, business groups attacked the Osha emergency regulation as too expensive and likely to cause workers to leave their jobs at a time when finding new employees already is difficult.The vaccine mandate that the court will allow to be enforced nationwide covers virtually all healthcare workers in the country. It applies to healthcare providers that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding, potentially affecting 76,000 health care facilities as well as home health care providers. The rule has medical and religious exemptions.Earlier on Thursday, Biden announced plans to send 1,000 military medical personnel to hospitals and medical facilities, the president said on Thursday, as he announced plans to purchase another 500m at-home Covid tests.The military members will begin arriving in states across the country next week, amid a surge in cases largely attributed to the Omicron variant. This week a top government official admitted it was likely that most Americans would be infected with the coronavirus.Biden to meet Senate Democrats in bid to revive voting rights pushRead moreOn Tuesday the US recorded a record number of hospitalisations due to Covid-19 as daily infections soared to more than 1.35m. A test kit shortage across the country continues to hamper efforts to control the Omicron variant, but a silver lining has emerged, with signs that Omicron may be peaking in parts of the north-east.In New York City the number of new cases has flattened in recent days, the New York Times reported, while New Jersey and Maryland have seen a slight decrease in the number of infections.“Every case is one too many, but if you watch the trend line, it looks like we may be cresting over that peak,” Kathy Hochul, governor of New York, said in a briefing this week.“We are not at the end, but this is a glimmer of hope when we desperately need that.”Speaking at the White House on Thursday, Biden said his administration would double its order of home test kits, which will be delivered free of charge to Americans, to 1bn.The White House announced it would purchase 500m tests in December, but those tests are yet to be distributed.“I know we’re all frustrated as we enter this new year,” Biden said, as he noted that virus cases have reached new heights. But he insisted that it remains “a pandemic of the unvaccinated”.Biden said a website where people can request tests will launch next week. The president also announced that, for the first time, his administration was planning to make high-quality N95 masks, which are most effective at preventing transmission of the virus, available free.The 1,000 members of the military will help mitigate staffing crunches at hospitals across the country, Biden said, with many facilities struggling because their workers are in at-home quarantines due to the virus at the same time as Covid-19 cases have surged.They will supplement the more than 800 military personnel who have already been helping civilian hospitals since Thanksgiving, and the more than 14,000 national guard members who are assisting with testing and vaccinations.This week Janet Woodcock, the acting head of the Food and Drug Administration, said most Americans were likely to contract coronavirus.“I think it’s hard to process what’s actually happening right now, which is [that] most people are going to get Covid, all right?” Woodcock said.Biden also announced that six additional military medical teams will be deployed to hospitals in Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Rhode Island.The US leads the world in the daily average number of new infections reported, accounting for one in every three infections reported worldwide, according to a Reuters tally.TopicsUS politicsCoronavirusJoe BidenUS supreme courtnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The ‘stench’ of politicization: Sonia Sotomayor’s supreme court warning

      by

      The ‘stench’ of politicization: Sonia Sotomayor’s supreme court warningOral arguments over the Mississippi abortion case this week showed the threat to Roe v Wade from an increasingly politicized court About 11 minutes into this week’s hearing on abortion rights at the US supreme court, the floor was taken by Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three beleaguered liberal-leaning justices left on the court after its sharp rightward shift under Donald Trump.‘It’s earth-shattering’: Democrats and allies vow midterm fight over abortionRead moreSotomayor began by noting that in the past 30 years no fewer than 15 justices of all political backgrounds had supported the right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability. Only four had objected.Now after so many years of relative consensus, the legality of abortion enshrined in the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v Wade and reaffirmed in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v Casey was suddenly on the line.Politicians in Mississippi, Sotomayor remarked (while leaving it unsaid that they were rightwing Republicans), had devised new legislation to ban abortions after just 15 weeks of pregnancy. By these politicians’ own admission, their bills were targeted specifically at the three new justices on the supreme court (all appointed by Trump, though she left that unspoken too).Then she went in for the kill.She addressed the danger posed by the court’s sudden and apparently politically motivated change of heart not just to abortion rights but to the rule of law itself.If the nation’s highest court, with its newly constituted Trumpian majority, were to go along with the ploy set for it by Mississippi and throw out half a century of settled law affirming a woman’s right to choose, then what would happen to the court’s legitimacy as a place in American democracy that rises above the cut and thrust of grubby partisanship?“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she said. “I don’t see how it is possible.”Stench. The word ricocheted off the august walls of the courtroom like a bullet.“It was a shocking moment,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. “An unadorned recognition of the legitimacy issues that are clearly preoccupying a number of the justices.”For Stephen Vladeck, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas at Austin, the takeaway of this week’s hearing was not how many justices were preoccupied with the reputational damage facing an increasingly politicised court, but how few. “To me, the single most distressing feature of Justice Sotomayor’s arguments was how little anyone else seemed to care,” he told the Guardian.Vladeck said he was dismayed by the “casualness with which so many of the justices seemed to be taking an issue that is so central to so many women. A ruling that gets rid of Roe would be enormously damaging in the eyes of millions of Americans, yet some of the conservative justices don’t seem to think that’s important.”The perception of nonchalance towards the integrity of the court among the six conservative justices now in the majority is striking. In advance of last week’s supercharged hearing, several of those same justices bent over backwards to try to convince the American people that they are neutral servants of the constitution.The three justices appointed by Trump have been especially keen to portray themselves as having not a partisan bone in their body. Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first of the three appointments, insisted in September 2019 that it was “rubbish” to imply that the justices were “like politicians with robes”.More recently Amy Coney Barrett, another of Trump’s triumvirate of appointees, told an audience in Kentucky that the supreme court was not “comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”. But she was speaking at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville and was introduced at the event by the politician after whom the venue is named – Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the US Senate. It was his shenanigans, blocking Merrick Garland’s confirmation to the court in 2016 on grounds that it was in an election year then rushing through Barrett’s confirmation much closer to election day in 2020, that gave Trump his three picks.But it is the third of Trump’s supreme court proteges, Brett Kavanaugh, whose position is perhaps most glaring. During his confirmation process in 2018 Kavanaugh went to great lengths to underline his respect for the decisions made by his predecessors on the court, and for the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, which requires justices to honor past rulings in all but exceptional cases.Kavanaugh assured senators worried about his stance on abortion that he saw Roe v Wade as “settled law”.He went even further in his conversations with Susan Collins, the relatively moderate Republican senator from Maine on whose vote Kavanaugh depended. When she announced her decision to back him for the supreme court, she revealed what he had said to her during private conversations.“There has been considerable … concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v Wade,” she said. “Protecting this right is important to me. As Judge Kavanaugh asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked.”But when it came round to Kavanaugh’s turn to speak in this week’s debate he read out a long list of supreme court cases in which prior precedents had been overturned. He left observers with the clear impression that he was preparing to do precisely what he promised Collins and her fellow senators that he would not do – run roughshod over a pillar of constitutional law.The pointed interventions of the Trump justices and their conservative peers in this week’s hearing have led most observers convinced that abortion rights in the US are likely to be grossly restricted or abolished outright when the court rules next June. That would be uncannily as Trump himself had predicted.In a televised debate during the 2016 presidential race, Trump was asked by the Fox News host Chris Wallace whether he wanted the court, including any justices he might appoint as president, to overturn the right to an abortion. He replied: “I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges. I would think that that will go back to the individual states.”Trump did go on to appoint anti-abortion judges, and they are now poised to send control back to individual states, 21 of which currently have laws in place that would effectively ban abortions overnight were Roe v Wade overturned.Vladeck fears that the vast and growing disconnect between what the conservative justices say they are doing – impartially and faithfully upholding the law of the land, and what they are actually doing – playing along with the machinations of politicians in states like Mississippi, bodes very ill for the legitimacy of the court.In the long run it could also harm America’s future as a country of laws.“Public perception matters,” he said. “The more the court appears to be guided by contemporary partisan preferences as opposed to permanent legal principles, the harder it will be for millions of Americans on the wrong side of these cases to understand why they should be bound by them.”TopicsUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)AbortionnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Abortion rights advocates vow to fight on after supreme court hearing

      by

      Abortion rights advocates vow to fight on after supreme court hearingLeaders say they will look to statehouses and lower courts if justices allow undermining of Roe v Wade In the wake of Wednesday’s supreme court hearing in which a majority of justices appeared willing to significantly curb abortion rights, reproductive rights advocates said they would continue to fight in statehouses and lower courts for the right to choose.The supreme court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, widely regarded as the most important abortion rights case in nearly five decades.The case before the court pits Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s last abortion clinic, also known as the “Pink House”, against the state health director, Dr Thomas Dobbs. A decision is expected in June 2022.Conservative US supreme court justices signal support for restricting abortion in pivotal caseRead moreMississippi intends to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a move blocked so far by lower courts.While a significant blow to abortion rights is far from a foregone conclusion, questions from the supreme court’s conservative justices on Wednesday appeared to show a willingness to allow restrictions on abortion at 15 weeks and perhaps earlier in a pregnancy.The case also requests the court overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 supreme court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion and is the only safeguard for such rights in dozens of conservative US states.Under present law, pregnant people have a right to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, widely regarded as 24 weeks gestation. A full-term pregnancy is considered 39 weeks gestation.In a consensus shared across the political spectrum, at least five justices appeared divided over whether to significantly curb or overturn Roe v Wade.Six of the nine justices lean to the right, with three of them nominated by Donald Trump during his one-term presidency. “Congress could fix the issue right now,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the organization that represented abortion providers in the supreme court on Wednesday.Although abortion was legalized in 1973 and has been relied upon by women nationally since then, Congress has never affirmed the right to abortion in legislation. That left the Roe v Wade precedent as the principle protection of the option for termination, while anti-abortion campaigners have brought many legal challenges and also pushed laws undermining access to the procedure.“All these bans and undue burdens in abortion care would be addressed by the Women’s Health Protection Act,” Northup said, referring to a bill recently passed by the US House of Representatives. “That would make sure women can access abortion without unnecessary bans.”Thus far, the bill has been viewed as highly unlikely to pass into law because it would need to overcome the Senate filibuster rule, requiring a 60-vote majority in the evenly divided chamber, where the Republicans would oppose it.Joe Biden said on Wednesday: “I support Roe v Wade. I think it’s a rational position to take.”Julie Rikelman, CRR’s litigation director, who argued before the justices, said campaigners would continue to fight if the supreme court went against reproductive choice. “We will continue to make every argument we can in the federal courts, we will continue to litigate in the state courts … we will not stop fighting, because it is just too important,” Rikelman said.Shannon Brewer, the director of the Pink House, said the coming months would be tough, with her providers “sitting and waiting and twiddling our thumbs” in anticipation of a decision.“It was a difficult day for everybody [but] I listened to the arguments and I think they did a great job at representing women today,” Brewer said.Following what was widely viewed as a hearing favorable to anti-abortion forces, conservatives chimed in.“What we want to see is the court do the right thing and overturn Roe,” said Chip Roy, a Republican US representative from Texas. He decried fears over a threat to choice as a “wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left”.Sam Brownback, the former US ambassador at large for international religious freedom under Trump, said it was time to overturn Roe “and let states address the issue”.Overturning Roe v Wade would effectively return the issue to be decided at state level, where swaths of the south and midwest would be “certain or likely” to ban most abortion. Already, several states have banned abortion at six weeks, though all those laws have been blocked by courts, with the prominent exception of Texas.Some reproductive rights advocates remained optimistic.Schaunta James-Boyd, co-executive director of Trust Women, an organization dedicated to providing abortions in underserved states, said her group “look[s] forward to a positive outcome later in 2022”.The pressure to legislate an affirmative right to abortion in states not openly hostile is likely to increase as a supreme court decision nears. While 26 states are “certain or likely” to outlaw abortion if Roe v Wade were overturned, states such as New York and Illinois have worked to protect abortion rights. Polling shows about six in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all or most” circumstances.Meanwhile, the House speaker and California Democrat Nancy Pelosi said: “The House is committed to defending women’s health freedoms and to enshrining into law our House-passed Women’s Health Protection Act, led by Congresswoman Judy Chu, to protect reproductive health care for all women across America.”She added that the supreme court “has the opportunity and responsibility to honor the constitution, the law and this basic truth: every woman has the constitutional right to basic reproductive healthcare”.TopicsAbortionHealthGenderUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More