Race

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Clyburn: supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘beyond politics’

      by

      Clyburn: supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘beyond politics’South Carolina congressman extracted Biden’s promise to instal first Black woman on court

      Opinion: Jackson will be a superb addition to the court
      The supreme court nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson should be placed “beyond politics”, the politician who extracted Joe Biden’s politically priceless promise to instal the first Black woman on the court said on Sunday.Tucker Carlson condemned for Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Rwanda’ commentsRead moreBiden introduced Jackson as his pick to replace the retiring Stephen Breyer this week.Some Republicans have complained that nominations should not be made on grounds of race or gender – ignoring promises to put women on the court acted on by Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.Others have complained about how Democrats treated one of Trump’s nominees, Brett Kavanaugh, who denied allegations of sexual assault. Others have objected on ideological grounds, for example Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate judiciary committee, claiming the Jackson nomination was the work of the “radical left”.James Clyburn, the South Carolina congressman and House Democratic whip whose endorsement both propelled Biden to the presidential nomination and produced his promise to pick a Black woman, appeared on Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation.He said: “This is beyond politics. This is about the country, our pursuit of a more perfect union, and this is demonstrative of another step in that pursuit.”Of 115 supreme court justices, 108 have been white men. Two have been Black men, five women. As well as being the first Black woman on the court, Jackson would be the fourth woman on the current nine-justice panel, joining liberals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett, a hardline conservative.Clyburn said he hoped “that all my Republican friends will look upon” the nomination of Jackson as being “beyond politics”.“Let’s have a debate,” he said. “Let’s talk to her about her rulings and about her philosophy. But in the final analysis, let’s have a strong bipartisan support to demonstrate that both parties are still in pursuit of perfection”.No supreme court nomination – or, most observers would argue, hearing or ruling – is ever above politics. If confirmed, Jackson will not alter the balance of a court tilted 6-3 to conservatives by Republican political hardball which gave Trump three picks.Before Biden made his decision, Clyburn and Republicans including Graham and the other South Carolina senator, Tim Scott, championed J Michelle Childs, a judge from their state. Clyburn said it would be important to instal a justice who did not go to Yale or Harvard. Jackson went to Harvard.“It’s more traditional, no question about that,” Clyburn told CBS. “This means that we will continue that tradition, and I am one, as you can see, that’s not so much for tradition. I want to see us break as much new ground as possible.“But … in the final analysis, I think this is a good choice. It was a choice that brings on to the court a background and some experiences that nobody else on the court will have. And I think when you look at not just [Jackson’s] background in the family, life, but also her profession, she was a public defender. That adds a new perspective to the court.”Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas, has pointed out that Jackson has more trial experience than four current justices combined – including the chief, John Roberts.Clyburn also said a successful confirmation process could help Biden politically with Black voters facing difficulties familiar to most Americans, particularly inflation.“When you have an opportunity to make an appointment like you just had,” he said, “and he made an African American appointment, I guarantee you, you see some of that move up. It may not move up with the people who are having income problems, but it will move up to those who have other reservations about the president.”Last year, Jackson was confirmed to the court of appeals for the DC circuit with support from three Republican senators: Graham, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska.‘Leaders lead during crises’ – but Biden’s approval rating hits new low, poll findsRead moreThis year, Democrats will be able to confirm Jackson simply by keeping their 50 votes together and using Kamala Harris’s casting vote as vice-president.But on Sunday Mitt Romney of Utah told CNN’s State of the Union he could vote to confirm Jackson.“Yes,” the former presidential nominee said, “I’m going to take a very deep dive and had the occasion to speak with her about some of the concerns when she was before the Senate to go on to the circuit court.“Look, her nomination and her confirmation would or will be historic. And like anyone nominated by the president of the United States, she deserves a very careful look, a very deep dive. And I will provide fresh eyes to that evaluation, and hope that I will be able to support her in the final analysis.”TopicsKetanji Brown JacksonUS supreme courtUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)US politicsRaceDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Toni Morrison novel The Bluest Eye off banned list in St Louis schools

      by

      Toni Morrison novel The Bluest Eye off banned list in St Louis schoolsNobel laureate’s classic debut was removed from libraries but backlash and lawsuits prompted vote to restore

      Books bans and ‘gag orders’: the crackdown no one asked for
      A banned book by the Nobel laureate Toni Morrison will be available again to high school students in a district in St Louis, Missouri, after the Wentzville school board reversed its decision to ban The Bluest Eye, in the face of criticism and a class-action lawsuit.‘Adults are banning books, but they’re not asking our opinions’: meet the teens of the Banned Book ClubRead moreThe board made national news last month when it voted 4-3 to removed the book from school libraries, citing themes of racism, incest and child molestation.Morrison’s 1970 debut novel is one of several titles, including Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe and L8R, G8R by Lauren Myracle, to have gained the attention of school boards in conservative US areas.The Wentzville ban was imposed after a challenge by a parent exercising the right to request titles not be available to their children. Backlash was swift, critics saying the board had violated first amendment rights.In a letter of protest, the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the Missouri Library Association said: “We encourage you to reexamine the depth of your commitment to education in the truest sense, and to find your courage in the face of baseless political grandstanding at the expense of educators and students in your district.”The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri sued the district on behalf of two students. According to the St Louis Post-Dispatch, the board accepted a review committee’s recommendation to retain Morrison’s book, voting 5-2 on Friday to rescind the ban. An ACLU official, Anthony Rothert, welcomed the news but warned that books remain suppressed including All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M Johnson, Fun Home by Alison Bechdel, Heavy by Kiese Laymon and Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison. Challenges against two other books had been withdrawn, the Post-Dispatch reported.The board also approved the retention of Gabi, a Girl in Pieces by Isabel Quintero, which faced challenges regarding language and depiction of rape.“Wentzville’s policies still make it easy for any community member to force any book from the shelves even when they shamelessly target books by and about communities of color, LGBTQ people and other marginalized groups,” said Rothert. “Access to The Bluest Eye was taken from students for three months just because a community member did not think they should have access to Toni Morrison’s story.”Many library associations argue that parents of minors should be able to control their children’s reading but should not make books unavailable to others.Opponents of Morrison’s book, including conservative lawmakers, urged the school board to maintain its ban. After the decision, board member Sandy Garber maintained that The Bluest Eye “doesn’t offer anything to our children”.According to the American Library Association, which monitors challenges to books, calls for bans are increasing.“It’s a volume of challenges I’ve never seen in my time at the ALA – the last 20 years,” the director of the ALA office of intellectual freedom, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, told the Guardian in November. “We’ve never had a time when we’ve gotten four or five reports a day for days on end, sometimes as many as eight in a day.Reuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Tim Scott, only Black Senate Republican, hints he could be Trump running mate

      by

      Tim Scott, only Black Senate Republican, hints he could be Trump running mateSouth Carolinian tells Fox News ‘Everybody wants to be on President Trump’s bandwagon, without any question’

      Opposition to Trump stirs among Republicans
      The only Black Republican in the Senate, Tim Scott of South Carolina, has indicated a willingness to be Donald Trump’s running mate should the former president mount another White House campaign.Florida governor: school districts that defied no-mask mandate to lose $200m Read moreAsked by Fox News if he would consider joining a Trump ticket in 2024, Scott said: “Everybody wants to be on President Trump’s bandwagon, without any question.”The remark prompted criticism, in light of Trump’s long history of incendiary rhetoric on race.Mehdi Hasan, an MSNBC host, listed some examples when he wrote: “Shithole countries, go back to where you came from, very fine people, white people don’t get vaccines, stand back and stand by … none of it matters to Tim Scott.”Scott, 56, is widely seen as a contender for the Republican nomination itself, though most observers think it remains Trump’s for the taking.The former president is free to run after Republicans, including Scott, voted to acquit in his second impeachment trial, for inciting the deadly Capitol attack.Tensions between the party establishment and Trump supporters have increased, particularly after the Republican National Committee called Trump’s lie about election fraud and the attack on Congress it fueled “legitimate political discourse”.On Sunday, Scott told Fox News: “One of the things that I said to the president is he gets to decide the future of our party and our country because he is still the loudest voice.”On Saturday, the Washington Post ranked its top 10 contenders for the Republican nomination. Trump was first, Scott sixth.Pointing to the South Carolinian’s aggressive fundraising, the paper said Scott was “raising huge money – $7m last quarter – for something which should, by all accounts, be a pretty sleepy re-election race. He’s also doing something lots of presidential candidates do before running: release a book.”Cruz: Biden promise to put Black woman on supreme court is racial discriminationRead moreThe paper made the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, second-favourite. The former South Carolina governor and UN ambassador Nikki Haley was third, former vice-president Mike Pence fourth and Donald Trump Jr fifth.Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was seventh, Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin eighth, New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu ninth and former secretary of state Mike Pompeo 10th.Scott said: “What I hope happens is that we rally around the principles that lead to our greatest success. I am not looking for a seat on a ticket at this point. I am however looking to be re-elected in South Carolina.“So my hope is that you win next Friday’s football game before thinking about any other one. So that’s my primary responsibility.”TopicsUS elections 2024Donald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsRaceSouth CarolinanewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      San Francisco mayor: recalled school board members were distracted by politics

      by

      San Francisco mayor: recalled school board members were distracted by politicsCovid closures and attempt to rename schools deemed named for figures linked to injustice, including Abraham Lincoln, fueled vote San Francisco school board members recalled from their posts this week allowed themselves to become distracted by politics, the city’s mayor said on Sunday.Florida governor: school districts that defied no-mask mandate to lose $200m Read moreVoters overwhelmingly approved the recall of board president Gabriela López, vice-president Faauuga Moliga and commissioner Alison Collins.The board was enveloped in controversy over Covid regulations and closures; an attempt to rename 44 schools deemed to be named for figures linked to racism, sexism and other injustices, among them Abraham Lincoln; and remarks by Collins about Asian Americans.The mayor of San Francisco, London Breed, spoke to NBC’s Meet the Press. Discussing her obligation to name replacements, she said: “I’m going to be looking for people that are going to focus on the priorities of the school district and not on politics, and not on what it means to run for office, and stepping stones, and so on and so forth. “We need people who want to be on the school board to make a difference, and who meet those qualifications to do the job.”Breed sidestepped suggestions the recall showed voters rejecting progressive policies.“My take is that it was really about the frustration of the board of education [not] doing their fundamental job,” she said. “And that is to make sure that our children are getting educated, that they get back into the classroom. And that did not occur. They were focusing on other things that were clearly a distraction.“Not to say that those other things around renaming schools and conversations around changes to our school district weren’t important, but what was most important is the fact that our kids were not in the classroom. “And San Francisco … we’ve been a leader during this Covid pandemic. In some cases, we have put forth the most conservative policies to ensure the safety of all San Franciscans. And our vaccination rates, and our death rates and other numbers demonstrate that we are a clear leader. “But we failed our children. Parents were upset. The city as a whole was upset, and the decision to recall school board members was a result of that.”School boards have become battlegrounds across the US, often as conservative parents and activists look to control what children are taught and how schools deal with Covid.Breed said: “This is not a Democratic/Republican issue. This is an issue about the education of our children.”She also said parents wanted “someone who is going to focus on … making sure that children get the education that they need in our schools, dealing with the challenges of learning loss, dealing with the mental health challenges that exist”.López, the board president, said her recall was the “consequence” of her “fight for racial justice”, and added: “White supremacists are enjoying this, and the support of the recall is aligned with this.”Breed said: “Well, of course [that’s] not the right kind of reaction. And the fact that we’re still even listening to any of the recalled school board members is definitely a problem. Bills to ban US schools’ discussion of LGBTQ+ issues are threat to free speech – reportRead more“… This person is making it about them when it really should be about our kids who have suffered, not just in San Francisco but all over this country as a result of this pandemic.”Her host, Chuck Todd, asked: “How much of this was about renaming the schools of George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln, and [Senator] Dianne Feinstein [and] how much of it was also parents upset that the rules were changed at how you got into some specific magnet schools?”Breed said it “was probably both. But at the end of the day, our kids were not in school. And they should’ve been.”“… And yes, of course there were people who were probably upset about some of the proposed changes. But those are discussions that are important to have, but not at the expense of making sure that the priority of what the school district is there to do is met.”TopicsSan FranciscoCaliforniaUS educationRaceCoronavirusUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Cruz: Biden promise to put Black woman on supreme court is racial discrimination

      by

      Cruz: Biden promise to put Black woman on supreme court is racial discriminationJustices have been chosen on grounds of identity before, as Trump did when he picked a woman to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg The Republican senator Ted Cruz complained on Sunday that Joe Biden’s promise to nominate a Black woman to the supreme court was an instance of racial discrimination – but also claimed the GOP would not drag the eventual nominee “into the gutter” in confirmation hearings.The US supreme court is letting racist discrimination run wild in the election system | Carol AndersonRead more“Democrats today believe in racial discrimination,” Cruz told Fox News Sunday. “They’re they’re committed to it as a political proposition. I think it is wrong to stand up and say, ‘We’re going to discriminate.’”Biden made his promise on the campaign trail in 2020. Stephen Breyer, the oldest justice on the court, announced his retirement last month.James Clyburn, the South Carolina congressman and House whip, was instrumental in securing Biden’s promise. He has pushed for the nomination of J Michelle Childs, a judge from his state who has also attracted support from Lindsey Graham, like Cruz an influential Republican on the Senate judiciary committee.Childs is reported to be on a short list of three.“This administration is going to discriminate,” Cruz insisted. “What the president said is that only African American women are eligible for this slot, that 94% of Americans are ineligible.”The Texas senator’s host, Bill Hemmer, did not point out that justices have been chosen on grounds of identity before.The last Republican president, Donald Trump, promised to pick a woman to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then did so when the liberal lion died in September 2020. Cruz championed the nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, a hardline Catholic conservative.As a result of Trump’s three picks, conservatives outnumber liberals on the court 6-3. The replacement of Breyer, which could be Biden’s sole nomination if Republicans win back the Senate, will not alter that balance.Cruz is an accomplished conservative provocateur. On Sunday, he chose a provocative example of a jurist who he said would not qualify for consideration by Biden: Merrick Garland.“Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama nominated to the supreme court, was told, ‘Sorry, you’re the wrong skin color and wrong gender, you’re not eligible to be considered.’”Garland is now attorney general, and thus unlikely to be considered for a supreme court seat in any eventuality.Furthermore, Cruz was among Senate Republicans who were not sorry to block even a hearing for Garland when he was nominated to replace Antonin Scalia in early 2016, claiming the conservative died too close to an election for a replacement to be considered.Cruz was also among Republicans who were not sorry to replace Ginsburg with Coney Barrett less than two months before the 2020 election.The Texas senator also said he would consider Biden’s nominee “on the record and I’m confident the Senate judiciary committee will have a vigorous process examining that nominee’s record. And what I can tell you right now is we’re not going to do what the Democrats did with Brett Kavanaugh.”Kavanaugh faced accusations of sexual assault, which he vehemently denied. Democratic failed to block his confirmation.“We’re not going to go into the gutter,” Cruz said. “We’re not going to engage in personal slime and attacks. We’re going to focus on the nominee’s record on substance and what kind of justice she would make. And that’s the constitutional responsibility of the Senate.”TopicsUS supreme courtTed CruzRepublicansUS politicsLaw (US)RacenewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      AOC calls Tucker Carlson ‘trash’ for saying she is not a woman of colour

      by

      AOC calls Tucker Carlson ‘trash’ for saying she is not a woman of colour‘You’re a creep, bro,’ says New York congresswoman after Carlson attacked Ocasio-Cortez in Fox News segment The Fox News host Tucker Carlson attacked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday night, claiming the US congresswoman was not a woman of colour.“She’s a rich entitled white lady,” he said.In return, the New York Democrat, popularly known as AOC, said: “This is the type of stuff you say when your name starts with a P and ends with dejo.”Dictionary.com defines pendejo as “a mildly vulgar insult for ‘asshole’ or ‘idiot’ in Spanish”.It’s Trump’s time to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth | Lloyd GreenRead more“Once again,” Ocasio-Cortez added, “the existence of a wife or daughters doesn’t make a man good. And this one is basura.”Basura is Spanish for “trash”.She also accused Carlson of sexual harassment.Ocasio-Cortez’s mother is from Puerto Rico, her father from the Bronx. She has described herself as a woman of colour.Carlson said: “No one ever dares to challenge that description, but every honest person knows it is hilariously absurd.“There is no place on Earth outside of American colleges and newsrooms where Sandy Cortez” – Carlson’s derisory nickname for the New York congresswoman – “would be recognized as a quote, woman of color, because she’s not!“She’s a rich entitled white lady. She’s the pampered obnoxious ski bunny in the matching snowsuit who tells you to pull up your mask while you’re standing in the lift line at Jackson Hole. They’re all the same. It doesn’t matter what shade they are.”The leading provocateur in Fox News’ evening line-up was discussing a book about Ocasio-Cortez, Take Up Space: The Unprecedented AOC, written by Lisa Miller, a reporter at New York magazine.Carlson said Miller’s book was “like a box of Fig Newtons. You know it’s wrong to open it, but the temptation is strong, and so we did.”As the media watchdog Mediate put it, several of the passages Carlson read were “fawning in nature and weave mundane videos AOC has posted online – such as her assembling Ikea furniture – into a grand narrative about her life”.In one passage, Carlson said, the congresswoman is described as “pointedly” saying into a camera, “I’m alone today”.“Is it just us or does that sound like an invitation to a booty call?” Carlson said.“Maybe one step from ‘What are you wearing?’ Either way it’s a little strange. It’s definitely over-sharing and yet, according to the book, over-sharing is the key to Sandy Cortez’s success.”Ocasio-Cortez wrote: “Remember when the right wing had a meltdown when I suggested they exhibit obsessive impulses around young women? Well now Tucker Carlson is wishing for … this on national TV.“You’re a creep, bro. If you’re this easy with sexual harassment on air, how are you treating your staff?”TopicsAlexandria Ocasio-CortezFox NewsRaceUS politicsDemocratsNew YorkPuerto RiconewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Virginia governor Youngkin apologizes after mixing up Black state senators

      by

      Virginia governor Youngkin apologizes after mixing up Black state senatorsLouise Lucas noted she received a text from Glenn Youngkin congratulating her for a speech Mamie Locke gave The Virginia governor, Glenn Youngkin, has apologized after mistaking one Black legislator for another in a text message.Youngkin is the new Republican governor of the state, which has trended Democrat in recent election cycles but stunned observers by picking Youngkin as its new leader last year over a centrist Democrat candidate.Youngkin issued the apology after Louise Lucas, a state senator, called attention to the mistake on Twitter. She noted that she received a text message from Youngkin congratulating her for a floor speech connected to Black History Month.But it was another African American woman, Mamie Locke, who gave the speech, not Lucas.On Friday, Lucas sent out a tweet with pictures of herself and Locke, saying: “Study the photos and you will get this soon!”Lucas told the Washington Post that she initially planned to keep Youngkin’s gaffe private but reconsidered after a bitter debate between Youngkin, a Republican, and Senate Democrats over their refusal to confirm former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler as the state’s secretary of natural and historic resources.When Lucas responded privately to Youngkin’s text message earlier in the week informing him of the mistaken identity, Youngkin responded with an apology, according to the Post: “Goodness . so sorry about the confusion,” he wrote in a text response. “I will send her a note. Thanks for the note back!”His office issued a public apology on Friday after the mistake became public, telling news outlets: “I had the floor speeches on while doing too many things at once earlier this week. I made a mistake and I apologized to Senator Lucas.“TopicsVirginiaRaceUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court is letting racist discrimination run wild in the election system | Carol Anderson

      by

      The US supreme court is letting racist discrimination run wild in the election systemCarol AndersonThe court has approved or tolerated massive voter roll purges, extreme gerrymandering and election laws that have a disparate impact on minorities The US supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, used the ruse that it was too close to an election – three months away – to scrap a racially discriminatory, Republican-drawn legislative map in Alabama. A lower court had previously ruled against the state because its gerrymandered congressional districts diluted the voting strength of African Americans by ensuring that 27% of Alabama’s population would garner only 14% of the state’s congressional representation. But that reality didn’t faze five justices; the US supreme court was just fine with letting a policy designed to disfranchise Black voters unfurl and do its damage in an oncoming federal election.The echoes of a brutal past are resonating in this decision.After the civil war, Congress passed the 1867 Reconstruction Act, which provided that Black men had the right to vote, and then Congress followed that with the 15th amendment, which banned states from using race, color or previous conditions of servitude to undermine the right to vote.In a series of decisions in the late 19th and early to mid-20th centuries, however, the supreme court systematically dismantled those protections, as well as others crafted to support African Americans’ citizenship rights and defend against white domestic terrorism waged by the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations. Focusing on voting rights gives some indication of how pernicious the decisions were. The 1874 Minor v Happersett ruling asserted that the right to vote was not part and parcel of American citizenship.In 1876, United States v Reese et al dealt with a Black man who was trapped in a malicious catch-22 that prevented him from voting. He tried to pay his poll tax, which was required to vote, but the tax collector refused to accept the payment and the registrars would not allow him to cast a ballot without payment. The court ruled, despite this crude and brazen denial of his right to vote, that the 15th amendment “does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one”.As states then began fully implementing Jim Crow legislation to disfranchise African Americans, the court, in the Williams v Mississippi (1898) decision, looked at the poll tax and the literacy test and ruled that those chokepoints to the ballot box – which had already removed 90% of registered Black voters in Mississippi from the rolls – did not violate the 15th amendment.In a 1903 case out of Alabama, Giles v Harris, the supreme court determined that it was powerless to stop a state from disfranchising Black voters even if the methods were unconstitutional.This assault on African Americans’ right to vote was an assault on American democracy aided and abetted by the highest court in the land. The results were devastating. By 1960, there were counties in Alabama that had no Black voters registered, while simultaneously having more than 100% of white age-eligible voters on the rolls. In Mississippi a mere 6.7% of eligible Black adults were registered to vote.It took the blood, the courage and the martyrdom of civil rights workers combined with the political spine of a president and congressional leaders to break this stranglehold on the right to vote. The legislature passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which would save America from its worst self. And, this time, in the late 1960s, the US supreme court came down on the side of democracy and the 15th amendment. Two crucial decisions buttressed the VRA, noting that it was not only constitutional but also created to deal with “the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of race”.The Roberts court, however, bears no resemblance to the one in the 1960s and has all the anti-voting rights earmarks of the court after the civil war. The Roberts court’s assault on the VRA and the 15th amendment has been relentless and brutal to American democracy.The Shelby County v Holder (2013) decision ended the most powerful tool in the VRA’s wheelhouse, pre-clearance, and allowed states and jurisdictions with a demonstrated history of racial discrimination to implement laws and election policies without the prior approval of the US Department of Justice or the federal court in Washington DC.Within two hours of that decision, Texas implemented a voter ID law that led district court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos to rule that the new measure not only had a discriminatory effect, it also had a discriminatory intent. The state appealed to the fifth circuit, pleading with the judges to not dismantle the voter ID law because it would be too disruptive to the looming midterm election in 2014.When the case reached the US supreme court, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority ruled in favor of Texas without comment. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, however, tore away at the state’s ruse that it was too close to the midterms to stop a racially discriminatory law in its tracks. The greatest threat to confidence in elections, she wrote, was to allow a “purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters” to be used in a federal election.But the majority on the US supreme court was fine with letting discrimination run wild in the election system.That has been abundantly clear in a number of voting rights cases that have come before the Roberts court since the Shelby County v Holder decision. Each one, whether massive voter roll purges in violation of the National Voter Registration Act, extreme partisan gerrymandered districts, or election laws that have a disparate impact on minorities, has been approved, either by acts of commission or omission, by the US supreme court.There are consequences.The very legitimacy of the court is at stake. Right now it’s as precariously perched as the right to vote and American democracy. Unfortunately, the Roberts court has played a major, horrific role in this preventable disaster.
      Carol Anderson is the Charles Howard Candler professor of African American studies at Emory University and the author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide and One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression is Destroying Our Democracy. She is a contributor to the Guardian
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS supreme courtLaw (US)US voting rightsRacecommentReuse this content More