Category Archives: Courts

A Disgusting Court

Posted on by
Reply

A while ago, I wrote about racism on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court wrote in its DOMA ruling

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage.

And

…no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect [of DOMA] to disparage and to injure….

And so on.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent of this ruling [emphasis in the original],

At least without some more convincing evidence that the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent [emphasis in the original, cites omitted],

[T]he majority says that the support­ers of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples.  It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose…a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]”their children, (emphasis added).

I am sure these accusations are quite untrue.  To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act.  But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con­demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.  To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution.

The Supreme Court wrote in its California Proposition 8 ruling that the private group bringing the case to the Court had no standing to do so, even though this is the group that was instrumental in getting Proposition 8 onto the ballot and passed in the first place.  Only State Government officials had standing to defend the proposition in court, and they had refused to mount a defense.

The Court thereby ruled that the people have no standing to defend their own voice, only the State can (not just may) do this.  The Court has thereby ruled that the people no longer are sovereign; Government is sovereign.

This is a disgusting Court, and Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia are justified in their seeming embarrassment.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

The following, via The Weekly Standard, is excerpted from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in US v Windsor.

****

Let the People Decide

By ANTONIN SCALIA, FOR THE EDITORS

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former….

[In its holding, the Court] accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose…a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]” their children.

I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race….

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

As to that debate: Few public controversies touch an institution so central to the lives of so many, and few inspire such attendant passion by good people on all sides. Few public controversies will ever demonstrate so vividly the beauty of what our Framers gave us, a gift the Court pawns today to buy its stolen moment in the spotlight: a system of government that permits us to rule ourselves. Since DOMA’s passage, citizens on all sides of the question have seen victories and they have seen defeats. There have been plebiscites, legislation, persuasion, and loud voices—in other words, democracy.

Victories in one place for some, see North Carolina Const., Amdt. 1 (providing that “[m]arriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State,” approved by a popular vote, 61% to 39% on May 8, 2012, are offset by victories in other places for others, see Maryland Question 6 (establishing “that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license,” approved by a popular vote, 52% to 48%, on November 6, 2012). Even in a single State, the question has come out differently on different occasions. Compare Maine Question 1 (permitting “the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples,” approved by a popular vote, 53% to 47%, on November 6, 2012) with Maine Question 1 (rejecting “the new law that lets same-sex couples marry,” approved by a popular vote, 53% to 47%, on November 3, 2009).

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

****

What he said.

A Thought on Fisher

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Clarence Thomas has one.  Fisher v University of Texas at Austin was a case that wound up in front of the Supreme Court that involved a white woman who was denied admission as a result of UTA’s racial preference admissions system that explicitly deprecated some students and elevated others in the UTA admissions system solely on the basis of race, or so she claimed in her suit.

Monday, the Supremes took the easy way out and sent the case back to the Appellate Court on the legal technicality that that court had used the wrong criterion in reaching its decision upholding UTA’s race-based admissions system.

Justice Thomas, in his separate concurring opinion, had this to say concerning race-based discrimination, as cited in The Wall Street Journal:

While I find the theory advanced by the University to justify racial discrimination facially inadequate, I also believe that its use of race has little to do with the alleged educational benefits of diversity. I suspect that the University’s program is instead based on the benighted notion that it is possible to tell when discrimination helps, rather than hurts, racial minorities….  The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.

Slaveholders argued that slavery was a “positive good” that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life. See, e.g., Calhoun, Speech in the U.S. Senate, 1837, in P. Finkelman, Defending Slavery 54, 58–59 (2003) (“Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually….”)

…A century later, segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black students. They argued, for example, that separate schools protected black children from racist white students and teachers. See, e.g., …Tr. of Oral Arg. in Bolling v. Sharpe, O.T. 1952, No. 413, p. 56 (“There was behind these [a]cts a kindly feeling [and] an intention to help these people who had been in bondage. And there was and there still is an intention by the Congress to see that these children shall be educated in a healthful atmosphere, in a wholesome atmosphere, in a place where they are wanted….”)

…Following in these inauspicious footsteps, the University would have us believe that its discrimination is likewise benign. I think the lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign.

What he said.

A Little Bit of Cynicism

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up, in its next term, the question of recess appointments and of what is a “recess.”  The DC Circuit had ruled, in the case being appealed, that certain NLRB appointments were unconstitutional and so invalid because they had occurred while the Senate was in session and not in recess.  That court also held both that an actual recess could only occur between the year-long sessions of a Congress and that a recess appointment could be made only for a vacancy that originated during that recess.

President Barack Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verilli, in his filing before the Supremes argued with a straight face that were the Court to uphold the DC ruling, it would restrict the president’s power.

To which I ask, “Yeah, and…?”

Verilli also argued with similar seriousness that upholding the DC ruling

…would deem invalid hundreds of recess appointments made by presidents since early in the nation’s history[.]

Umm, no.  It would deem invalid the appointments on appeal and possibly the appointments made under similar circumstances since the NLRB appoints at the start of 2012.  Verilli knows better.

A Death Panel Overruled

Posted on by
Reply

A Death Panel of One, consisting of the woman who’ll be in charge of the death panel that will come into being with the full implementation of Obamacare.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius refused to intervene to overrule her own Department’s rule that would have left a 10-year-old girl to die because her chronological age left her too young to be eligible to compete for a lung transplant that could save her life.

Sebelius insisted she had no authority to waive the rule and so to allow the girl to compete with adults for an organ donor’s lung, never minding that the Congress that authorized her Department to have the rule assured her she did.

Sebelius insisted she didn’t want to play God and tear-jerkingly assured the House Committee on Education and the Workforce that she “can’t imagine anything more difficult” and that she “can’t imagine anything worse than one individual getting to pick who lives and who dies” while cynically ignoring the fact that by refusing to act, she was taking the “difficult” step of choosing “who lives and who dies.”

This Death Panel of One further justified her refusal by claiming

[T]there are about 40 seriously ill Pennsylvanians over the age of 12 also waiting for a lung transplant[.]

Never mind that the girl is at the top of the children’s list, so the other children’s status wouldn’t be affected, except through a slight improvement in their chances for getting a pediatric lung.  And that the girl wouldn’t go to the top of the adult’s list as a result of the rule’s waiver—she’d only be eligible to compete for a place in the list.

Fortunately, Federal District Judge Michael Baylson has overruled the Death Panel of One, at least temporarily, ordering Sebelius to waive the rule at least until 14 June, when he’ll have a full hearing on the rule.

But this is temporary, both for the 10-year-old and for Americans generally.  This is the sort of thing we can expect out of Obamacare’s more formal Death Panel, and too few Americans will have the resources to fight that one’s…decisions.