Judicial

Members of Congress from both parties must have been confounded by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s staggering assertion of judicial activism during last month’s arguments in the Shelby County (Alabama) voting rights case.
 


Speaking to our 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (the VRA), including the preclearance requirement in Section 5, Justice Scalia opined: “This is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.”
 


With all due respect to the Justice, both the record and the Civil War Amendments to our Constitution conclude otherwise.


Nearly 50 years after the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder. This case is about whether the federal government can continue to require some states, counties, and cities to request approval or “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department for alterations to their voting laws or congressional maps.

The states, counties, and cities which are required to request “pre-clearance” have been designated as such based on their history of voting discrimination and are covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and includes jurisdictions primarily located in the South, as well as several counties in New York. 

Wednesday's cloture vote on D.C. Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligan is a valuable reminder that the D.C. Circuit, the nation’s “second most important court,” now experiences four vacancies in eleven judgeships. Indeed, this chief executive is the first in more than a half century who has appointed no D.C. Circuit judge. It is past time that President Barack Obama - who has recommended two prospects - nominate, and the Senate approve, exceptional candidates for all four vacancies. The Senate can start this week by agreeing to cloture on Halligan and granting the well qualified nominee an up or down floor vote.

Last weekend, I joined The Faith and Politics Institute on their annual Congressional Civil Rights pilgrimage to Alabama. I’ve taken this trip several times, but its significance this year could not be more poignant. While we have come a long way and much progress has been made, the many battles fought forty eight years ago in Selma are still raging, but this time we’re not fighting in the streets, we’re fighting in the courts.

Last week, some of my colleagues and I took that fight to the steps of the Supreme Court to rally in support of the most effective Civil Rights legislation ever enacted by Congress, The Voting Rights Act.

After many years of trying in vain to find the line between lawful and unlawful court-ordered killing, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun threw up his hands. "From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death," he said, dissenting in a 1994 capital punishment case.
 
What does this have to do with drone attacks? Justice Blackmun was speaking about a man who had been charged, convicted, and sentenced for a crime established by a democratically elected legislature. Killing in war, on the other hand, generally involves no judicial process. And that’s perfectly legal if done in accordance with the laws of war.

A few blocks from the U.S. Supreme Court is the National Archives, housing original signed copies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and landmark pieces of federal legislation – including the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In front of the entrance to the Archives stand two statues with inscriptions that read “What is Past is Prologue,” and “Study the Past.” We hope all nine justices of the Supreme Court will heed that wisdom as they hear arguments this week about the constitutionality of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.  

It’s encouraging to hear Democrats and Republicans talking about children in the immigration debate. Children of immigrants are one-fourth of the kids in America, and one million of America’s unauthorized aspiring citizens are children. So getting immigration reform done means getting it right for kids.
 
This bipartisan focus on kids is critical, because current law subjects children to serious hardship and harm. As Michigan State Law School professor David Thronson recently wrote, today’s immigration law “devalues” children. He concludes that it treats children as objects, instead of people with rights and a say in their own lives. Not surprisingly, when children interact with the system, the outcomes are not good. For example a person inadmissible to the U.S. can qualify for relief by showing hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or other close adult relative, but the law systematically ignores the same hardship to a U.S. citizen child. Similar double-standards for deportation routinely subject kids to harm, by ignoring the common-sense reality that children experience traumatic separation in more damaging and lasting ways than adults.

There has been much discussion recently about the welcome prospect of pending immigration reform legislation. This is a propitious moment for our Nation to be having this important debate. Unfortunately, many people are narrowly framing this discussion through the lens of political expediency. The truth is that most conservatives - and most progressives for that matter - actually do want to find a solution to our nation's immigration crisis. Unfortunately, the traditional opponents of immigration reform and immigration in general, are doing their best to mitigate against the coming political winds that favor a bipartisan reform of our immigration laws. These anti-immigration advocates, who are in fact paid lobbyists, are encouraging Republicans to blindly follow them as they continue to bury their heads in the sand, and continue to spout their "anti-immigrant agenda" talking points.

For all of the newfound political freedom that President Obama now enjoys as his second term is under way, his administration has spent the last four years shrinking our essential constitutional liberties. Our liberties preserve a place for the individual apart from the government, the local community apart from the state, and the state apart from the federal government.
 
Despite Obama’s pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, he continues to limit our freedoms under the Bill of Rights. His second term promises even more encroachment.

For Brian Edwards and Tom Privitere of New Jersey, the photo was a beautiful reminder of the day they were engaged. Instead, the iconic photo of the two men kissing was stolen by an anti-gay group and used in a political mailer to attack a Colorado state Senate’s support for gay marriage. While there is no doubt that their likeness was misappropriated and the photographer’s work was stolen, really something more happened here: Brian and Tom were the victims of hate.
 
It’s a teenager’s worst nightmare: provocative photos are stolen and posted online by classmates who want to ruin your life. Or an ex-boyfriend lets the world see a sex-video that you thought was just for you and him. It’s called “slut-shaming,” and it’s the latest and most vicious form of cyber bullying.