Law

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why dissent by conservative justices in voting rights cases is alarming

      by

      Why dissent by conservative justices in voting rights cases is alarmingDemocrats won two major victories, but a dissenting opinion from three of the supreme court’s justices set off alarms bells Hello, and Happy Thursday,It’s no secret that the US supreme court has been hostile to voting rights recently. But two recent decisions, I think, highlight why what the court is doing is both alarming and inconsistent.Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardian’s Fight to vote newsletterOn Monday evening, the court gave Democrats two major victories, blocking Republican attempts to impose unfair congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In both states the respective state supreme courts had redrawn them to be fairer – decisions which the US supreme court upheld. Yet even though legal experts expected this outcome, a dissenting opinion from three of the court’s conservative justices set off loud alarm bells for me.The dissent was authored by Justice Samuel Alito (and joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in the North Carolina case). The three justices wrote that they would have blocked the state supreme court maps from going into effect. They pointed to a provision in the US constitution, the elections clause, that explicitly gives state legislatures the authority to set the “time, manner, and place” of federal elections. That provision, they said, likely means that state supreme courts can’t impose a new map, even if the one the legislature adopts violates a state’s constitution.“If the language of the Elections Clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Alito wrote.Alito’s dissent embraces an idea called the “independent state legislature doctrine”. Increasingly popular among conservative litigants, it argues that state courts cannot second-guess election rules – whether it be a gerrymandered map or a new voter ID law – passed by a legislature. It would give state legislatures enormous power over elections.The theory largely fell into disuse in the early 20th century, according to a paper by Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University. The supreme court has also repeatedly rejected the idea over the last century. But in a handful of cases during the 2020 election, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas all expressed interest in the idea.The focus on this idea is also notable because it is directly at odds with what Alito and other conservative justices have said recently.Reading Alito’s dissent, I couldn’t help but think of a majority opinion that he, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signed onto in 2019. In that case, called Rucho v Common Cause, they were part of a majority that said federal courts could not do anything to stop partisan gerrymandering. But, Roberts wrote, state laws and state courts could continue to police it. It was a clear instruction to litigants that they should take their cases about partisan gerrymandering to state courts, which is exactly what they did in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.Now, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch – and maybe Kavanaugh – seem to be backing away from that position.It’s not the only area of voting rights law where the supreme court has pulled a kind of bait-and-switch recently. In 2013, when a majority of the court, including Roberts, Alito and Thomas, gutted the the heart of the Voting Rights Act, designed to prevent voting discrimination, it pointed to another provision of the law, section 2, as a tool litigants could continue to use. But recently, the court has been slowly chipping away at section 2, too, making it harder to challenge laws under it and stepping in to overrule lower courts that have relied on it to block discriminatory maps. Taken together, the cases show how the supreme court is slowly attacking laws that are supposed to prevent Americans against voting discrimination.One other piece of Alito’s dissent deserves attention because it is, I would argue, hypocritical. In two short paragraphs, Alito explained why he didn’t think it would be a big deal for a court to step in and order North Carolina to adopt new congressional districts after candidates had begun filing for office ahead of the state’s 17 May primary. The public interest favored such a reset, he said, to ensure that districts were constitutional. All candidates would have to do, he said, was file a new form indicating they were running in the districts the legislature, not the state supreme court, had adopted. “That would not have been greatly disruptive,” he wrote.But last month, Alito took the opposite approach when he agreed with an opinion by Kavanaugh saying it would be too disruptive to impose new, non-discriminatory maps for Alabama’s 24 May primary – a week later than the one in North Carolina. Kavanaugh wrote: “Running elections statewide is extraordinarily complicated and difficult. Those elections require enormous advance preparations by state and local officials, and pose significant logistical challenges.”That argument prompted a furious response from Justice Elena Kagan, who said discrimination in Alabama should not get a free pass merely because elections were on the horizon. “Alabama is not entitled to keep violating Black Alabamians’ voting rights just because the court’s order came down in the first month of an election year,” she said.The opposing conclusions Alito reached in both cases underscores the immense discretion he is wielding on the bench to evaluate these claims. In North Carolina, when the legislature’s constitutional rights were at issue, it warranted the supreme court’s intervention. In Alabama, when Black Americans’ voting rights were at issue, he believed the court’s intervention was not needed.Also worth watching…
      A Colorado election clerk was indicted on charges she helped allow unaurthorized access to voting equipment.
      Florida Republicans are on the verge of creating a new office to investigate election crimes.
      The top election official in Texas’s largest county announced she would resign after the county experienced significant voting problems in the state’s primary.
      Newly released records in Wisconsin provide insight into a widely criticized review of the 2020 election.
      TopicsUS supreme courtThe fight to voteLaw (US)US politicsUS voting rightsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a superb addition to the US supreme court | Moira Donegan

      by

      Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a superb addition to the US supreme courtMoira DoneganUnlike most people nominated to the court, Jackson’s career has included advocating for the rights of criminal defendants and the poor She has always wanted this. Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s nominee to fill the supreme court seat left vacant by the retirement of Stephen Breyer at the end of this term, said that she wanted to become a judge one day in the yearbook from her Miami high school. By then she was already a champion in national oratory competitions, sharpening the skills of rhetoric and cadence that are the stock and trade of ambitious lawyers. Her parents – an attorney and a school principal – saw their daughter’s potential, and helped her to hoist herself from her middle-class origins onto the path followed by ambitious lawyers from more patrician backgrounds. She went to Harvard for undergrad and then to Harvard Law, eventually clerking on the court for Breyer himself – a justice known to be particularly picky with his clerkships.She seems to have pursued the law with single-minded devotion since she was very young, committing herself to the profession with all the passion and devotion of a vocation.Tucker Carlson condemned for Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Rwanda’ commentsRead moreBut her legal career took her to places most supreme court justices’ careers have not: In addition to her standard bona fides in private practice and later on the federal bench, she served on the United States Sentencing Commission, working to assess federal criminal sentencing practices and advocating for reduced sentences for drug offenders. Later, she served as a federal public defender in Washington. This makes her the first former public defender nominated to the court, and the first since Thurgood Marshall with extensive criminal defense experience. Her nomination signals a respect for a field of legal practice with great moral authority but little respect from the legal establishment: advocating for the rights of criminal defendants and the poor.When Biden nominated Jackson to a seat on the DC circuit court just last summer, the post was widely seen as a stepping-stone to the supreme court itself: Jackson had already been all but anointed as Breyer’s successor. She sailed through that confirmation, even bagging three Republican votes. The ease of her last appointment, even amid the backdrop of her future one, suggested that Senate Republicans had not been able to manufacture controversy from her record, a failure on their part that suggests remarkable discipline on Jackson’s. She seems to have behaved in a manner becoming a federal judge her whole life. It’s as if she was born wearing a black robe.And yet for much of the nation’s history, Judge Jackson’s story would have been impossible. Jackson is the first Black woman to be nominated to the supreme court, fulfilling a Biden campaign promise, and she has made her way in a legal profession – and indeed, in a country – that is accustomed to discarding Black women’s talent. In many ways she represents America’s great, if usually thwarted, promise: that hard work by individuals, combined with a moral arc of national history that bends toward justice, can deliver talented and worthy people to success despite the injustices imposed on them for their race, their sex, or their origins. That there has never been a Black woman on the court before is testament to how rarely this promise is kept: Jackson is not the first Black female legal mind worthy of the court, and if she is confirmed, she will serve alongside more than one white man of lesser intellect and character. But though she is the first, she will not be the last.When Jackson joins the court, all of the Democratic appointees will be women. Two will be women of color. That gender disparity is likely to be especially stark in abortion and LGBT rights cases the coming years, as the conservative legal movement builds off its expected success in Dobbs v Jackson, the case that will overturn Roe v Wade this summer, and sets its sights undoing the privacy right that the court has used to protect sexual freedoms. Over its coming terms, the court – whose extreme right bent will not be changed by Jackson’s addition – is likely to approve further abortion bans and restrictions, cut off contraception access, and roll back marriage equality, trans rights, and the legality of gay sex.Dissenting will be three women who stand for the rights of Americans to live lives free of the notion that biology must be destiny, and unencumbered by sex role stereotypes. These women will stand for these freedoms, and others, while a majority of six conservative justices enshrine male supremacy and forced birth into federal law. Jackson’s opinions will likely be oriented more towards young lawyers and the general public than towards her conservative colleagues, who have shown themselves petulant and unwilling to engage in good faith with the arguments of the liberals. It is not an enviable task that Jackson will face on the court, but we can be grateful that she is willing to take it.Nor will her confirmation be easy. Though Jackson has long been the favorite to replace Breyer, in recent weeks a group of conservative Democrats, led by the influential congressman Jim Clyburn, made a concerted push to encourage Biden to nominate Judge Michelle Childs, a federal district court judge from South Carolina. Childs’ nomination would have been a favor to Clyburn, whose endorsement of Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential primary is widely credited with reviving Biden’s faltering campaign. But Childs had sparked weariness from the left for her past decisions regarding criminal sentencing and her private practice work on labor disputes. Perhaps it was this criticism that endeared her to Senate Republicans, who issues warm words about Childs and dangled a bipartisan confirmation vote in front of Biden. Now that their preferred candidate has been rejected in favor of one more amenable to progressives, conservatives have endeavored to paint Jackson has an extreme leftist.“If media reports are accurate, and Judge Jackson has been chosen as the supreme court nominee to replace Justice Breyer, it means the radical left has won President Biden over yet again,” tweeted Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican on the Senate judiciary committee who voted to confirm Judge Jackson to the DC circuit last summer.Jackson’s actual jurisprudence reflects scrupulousness more than radicality. While on the DC circuit this past year, Judge Jackson presided over a case called Committee on the Judiciary v McGahn, a lawsuit concerning the Trump administration’s attempt to sabotage a congressional investigation. It’s the kind of case that ambitious judges pray to avoid: high-profile and politically charged, with one party that would declare any unfavorable outcome a process violation.Knowing she was under a microscope, Jackson delivered a measured, thorough, and lengthy ruling declaring that former White House counsel Don McGahn could be compelled to testify before Congress. It was the kind of point-by-point argument meant to be ironclad even to the least sympathetic of readers. But the opinion also contained memorable flashes of rhetoric. “Presidents are not kings,” Jackson wrote. “They do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.” It was the kind of writing that would represent the pinnacle of many judges’ careers. For Jackson, it may be only the beginning.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS newsOpinionUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)Biden administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to become first Black woman on supreme court

      by

      Biden nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson to become first Black woman on supreme courtWhite House praises ‘exceptionally qualified nominee’Jackson, if confirmed, will replace retiring Stephen Breyer Joe Biden on Friday nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the supreme court, seeking to elevate a Black woman to the nation’s highest court for the first time in its 232-year history.Biden’s decision to nominate Jackson to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, for whom she clerked, sets up a fierce confirmation battle in the deeply partisan and evenly-divided Senate. Breyer, the most senior jurist in the court’s three-member liberal wing, will retire at the end of the court’s current session this summer.Speaking from the Cross Hall of the White House, the president introduced the 51-year-old judge to the nation as “the daughter of former public school teachers” and a “proven consensus-builder” who has displayed “a pragmatic understanding that the law must work for the American people”.Ketanji Brown Jackson: who is Biden’s supreme court choice?Read moreHer nomination comes exactly two years to the day after Biden, struggling miserably in his third campaign for the presidency, vowed to nominate a Black woman to the supreme court if elected president.“For too long, our government, our courts, haven’t looked like America,” Biden said, flanked by Jackson and vice-president Kamala Harris, the first Black and Asian American woman to serve as vice president, whom the president said was influential in helping him make this consequential decision. “I believe it’s time that we have a court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation.”Jackson, who was widely considered a frontrunner for the nomination,sits on the powerful US court of appeals for the DC circuit, after winning bipartisan approval during her Senate confirmation last year, when Biden elevated her from the federal district court in the District of Columbia.Born in the nation’s capital and raised in Miami, Jackson clerked for Breyer during the supreme court’s 1999-2000 term. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, an elite background that matches the resumes of several justices on the supreme court but which Republicans have sought to paint her as out-of-touch.In Jackson, Biden said he found a nominee who shared a “uniquely accomplished and wide ranging background” as the justice she would replace if confirmed. In her remarks, Jackson praised the retiring justice for exemplifying “civility, grace, pragmatism and generosity of spirit”.“Members of the Senate will decide if I fill your seat,” she said. “But please know that I could never fill your shoes.”Across her broad legal career, Jackson worked as a public defender, an experience that sets her apart from most judges sitting on the federal bench. She previously served as vice-chair of the US Sentencing Commission, where she focused on reducing sentencing disparities as part of the agency’s work setting sentencing guidelines in federal criminal cases.In its statement, the White House said Biden sought a nominee “who is wise, pragmatic, and has a deep understanding of the constitution as an enduring charter of liberty”.It added: “The president sought an individual who is committed to equal justice under the law and who understands the profound impact that the supreme court’s decisions have on the lives of the American people.”Jackson’s confirmation would not affect the ideological composition of the court, controlled by a conservative super-majority of six justices, including three appointed by Donald Trump, but it does secure a liberal seat on the bench probably for decades to come.The opportunity to name a justice to the supreme court is a welcome bright spot for the president, whose approval ratings have fallen to record lows as he confronts myriad crises at home and abroad. It is also his most significant opportunity yet to shape the federal judiciary, which remains overwhelmingly white and male. In his first year, Biden nominated a record number of district and appeals court judges from a range of racial, ethnic, geographical and legal backgrounds.When Breyer announced his retirement in January, Biden vowed to nominate a jurist with “extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity”. And, reaffirming his campaign pledge, he added “that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States supreme court.”Urged by congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina ahead of his state’s primary, Biden made the pledge during a debate. Days later, with Clyburn’s endorsement, Black voters lifted Biden to a resounding victory in the South Carolina primary that set in motion a string of successes that ultimately earned him the nomination and later the White House.The promise divided Republican senators, some of whom argued that race or gender shouldn’t play a role in the selection process, despite similar commitments from Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and Trump.Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have said they intend to move forward quickly with the confirmation process.Senate leader Chuck Schumer said: “The historic nomination of Judge Jackson is an important step toward ensuring the supreme court reflects the nation as a whole. As the first Black woman supreme court justice in the court’s 232-year-history, she will inspire countless future generations of young Americans.”Schumer added: “With her exceptional qualifications and record of evenhandedness, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be a Justice who will uphold the constitution and protect the rights of all Americans, including the voiceless and vulnerable.”Jackson has successfully navigated the Senate confirmation process on three occasions, winning support from both parties each time. But nothing compares to the glare of a supreme court nomination hearing. Already, her nomination is being met with resistance from Republicans.South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, one of the three Republicans who voted to confirm her to the court considered the second highest in the land in 2021, said her nomination suggested the “radical left has won President Biden over yet again”.He had expressed a preference for J Michelle Childs, a US district judge in his home state of South Carolina.Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination is rare moment of celebration for BidenRead moreUnlike for most major pieces of legislation, Democrats can confirm Jackson with their 50 votes and Harris breaking the tie.If confirmed, Jackson would become the sixth woman to serve on the court and only the third Black justice, both men. They are Clarence Thomas, a conservative who was appointed in 1991 and is still serving, and Thurgood Marshall, the first African American supreme court justice.It will be the first supreme court confirmation hearing for a Democratic president since Elena Kagan was nominated by Barack Obama 12 years ago. Republicans refused to hold a hearing for Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, which further poisoned what has become scorched-earth affairs.On the appellate court, Jackson served in the seat held by Garland, after he became the attorney general.But there are already early signs that this confirmation may be different, as Republicans weigh how aggressively to confront Biden’s nominee, particularly when it will not affect the balance of the court.With their agenda stalled and the president unpopular, Democrats are hopeful the nomination will energize their base as they brace for a political backlash in this year’s midterm elections.Closing her remarks, Jackson acknowledged the historic nature of her nomination by noting an “interesting coincidence”: she shares a birthday with Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to become a federal judge.“Today, I proudly stand on Judge Motley’s shoulders, sharing not only her birthday, but also her steadfast and courageous commitment to equal justice under law,” Jackson said.And if confirmed, she concluded, “I can only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and the constitution and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great nation was founded, will inspire future generations of Americans.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsJoe BidenBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      National Archives reportedly asks DoJ to investigate Trump document handling

      by

      National Archives reportedly asks DoJ to investigate Trump document handlingRequest follows reports of Trump tearing up documents and sending boxes of files to Mar-a-Lago property The National Archives and Records Administration (Nara) has asked the justice department to investigate whether the former US president Donald Trump violated federal law in the handling of documents, the Washington Post has reported. The Associated Press was unable to independently confirm the report.The referral followed several Washington Post stories chronicling how Trump dealt with documents, including tearing them up. In one report, confirmed by the archives, the agency arranged the transport of 15 boxes of documents from the Mar-a-Lago property in Florida after Trump’s representatives discovered them and notified the archives.The Washington Post says the referral is asking the justice department to investigate whether Trump violated the Presidential Records Act, which requires that all presidential records of an administration be turned over to the National Archives when a president leaves office.The archives did not return multiple messages seeking comment. The justice department declined to comment. In a statement, Trump said: “Following collaborative and respectful discussions, the National Archives and Records Administration (Nara) arranged for the transport of boxes that contained presidential records in compliance with the Presidential Records Act” from Mar-a-Lago that will one day become part of the Donald J Trump presidential library.The media’s “characterisation of my relationship with Nara is fake news. It was exactly the opposite. It was a great honour to work with Nara to help formally preserve the Trump legacy,” said Trump.The archive acknowledged this week that Trump representatives had been cooperating with Nara and had located records “that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration”. Nara arranged for them to be transported to Washington. “Nara officials did not visit or raid the Mar-a-Lago property,” the agency said.Nara said the former president’s representatives are continuing to search for additional records that belong to the archives.In a separate statement, David S Ferriero, the archivist of the United States, said: “Whether through the creation of adequate and proper documentation, sound records management practices, the preservation of records, or the timely transfer of them to the National Archives at the end of an administration, there should be no question as to need for both diligence and vigilance. Records matter.”Supreme court rejects Trump bid to shield documents from January 6 panelRead moreThe issue of presidential records, the Trump administration and the archives has been central to the investigation by the House committee investigating the insurrection on 6 January that sought to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election. Trump tried to withhold White House documents in a dispute that rose to the supreme court.In an 8-1 ruling last month, the court let stand a lower court ruling that said the archives could turn over documents, which include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts and handwritten notes dealing with 6 January from the files of the former chief of staff Mark Meadows. At the time, the House committee agreed to defer its attempt to retrieve some documents, at the request of the Biden administration.A referral for potential criminal prosecution from a federal agency or from Congress does not mean the justice department is likely to bring charges or that it will even investigate the matter.Questions about Trump’s handling of records date back to 2018, when Politico reported that Trump aides, fearing he might violate the law, routinely pieced together documents with tape because of his habit of tearing them up.TopicsDonald TrumpUS supreme courtUS justice systemNational ArchivesLaw (US)US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 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