People For The American Way Makes The Case For Defeating Conservatives

Yesterday we tried our hand at explaining how the Supreme Court's narrowly partisan decision to void the Voting Rights Act is a catastrophe that is not ameliorated by the nice pat on the head they have the LGBT community the following day. Few organizations have fought harder and as effectively as People For the American Way when it comes to LGBT equality. This week, the organization's president, Michael Keegan, warned about the consequences of the Voting Rights Act decision, warning that we MUST remember what they did in 2016.

It's been a week of mixed emotions for those of us who care about civil rights. There was the elation today when the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Defense of Marriage Act-- the discriminatory law that has hurt so many Americans in its nearly 17 years of existence-- and let marriage equality return to California. There was the anger when the Court twisted the law to make it harder for workers and consumers to take on big corporations. And there was the disbelief and outrage when the Court declared that a key part of the Voting Rights Act that was so important and had worked so well was now somehow no longer constitutional.

But throughout the week, I have been reminded of one thing: how grateful I am that Mitt Romney will not be picking the next Supreme Court justice.

It remains true that this Supreme Court is one of the most right-leaning in American history. The majority's head-in-the-sand decision on the Voting Rights Act-- declaring that the VRA isn't needed anymore because it's working so well-- was a stark reminder of why we need to elect presidents who will nominate Supreme Court justices who understand both the text and history of the Constitution and the way it affects real people's lives.

We were reminded of this again today when all the conservative justices except for Anthony Kennedy stood behind the clearly unconstitutional DOMA. Justice Antonin Scalia-- no stranger to anti-gay rhetoric-- wrote an apoplectic rant of a dissent denying the Court's clear role in preserving equal protection. If there had been one more far-right justice on the court, Scalia's dissent could have been the majority opinion.

Just think of how different this week would have been if Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were not on the court and if John McCain had picked two justices instead. We almost certainly wouldn't have a strong affirmation of LGBT equality. Efforts to strip people of color of their voting rights would likely have stood with fewer justices in dissent. And the rights of workers and consumers could be in even greater peril.

As the Republican party moves further and further to the right, it is trying to take the courts with it. This week, we saw what that means in practice. As we move forward to urge Congress to fix the Voting Rights Act and reinforce protections for workers and consumers, and work to make sure that marriage equality is recognized in all states, we must always remember the courts. Elections have real consequences. These Supreme Court decisions had less to do with evolving legal theory than with who appointed the justices. Whether historically good or disastrous, all these decisions were decided by just one vote. In 2016, let's not forget what happened this week.

Read More

Democratic Senators Who Voted To Confirm Fascists To The Supreme Court

Justice Ginsburg, who, like Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer, went to my high school, James Madison in Brooklyn, knows what she's talking about when she says the decision by the 5 right-wing Republican activists on the Supreme Court, each of whom is also a corporate whore, produced an anti-democratic ruling stinking of "hubris." She pointed out how illogical their nakedly partisan arguments were:

In the Court’s view, the very success of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy. If the statute was working, there would be less evidence of discrimination, so opponents might argue that Congress should not be allowed to renew the statute. In contrast, if the statute was not working, there would be plenty of evidence of discrimination, but scant reason to renew a failed regulatory regime.

Our fellow Madison alumnus, Bernie Sanders, was even more to the point: "The Supreme Court has turned back the clock on equality in America by striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The landmark civil rights law that Congress passed almost five decades ago, and reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support only seven years ago, has been an important tool to protect voters in places with a history of discrimination. The law is as necessary today as it was in the era of Jim Crow laws. We must act immediately to rewrite this vital law." I think Republicans have a different agenda than Bernie. Speaking for all the racists and bigots who dominate the GOP, neo-fascist Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC) was positively giddy with the decision:

Today’s Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the preclearance requirements contained within the Voting Rights Act is a win for fairness, South Carolina, and the rule of law. The preclearance requirement forced South Carolina to spend millions of dollars to defend a photo identification requirement for voting that had already been ruled constitutional by the US Supreme Court. The court’s ruling will hopefully end the practice of treating states differently and recognizes that we live in 2013, not the 1960's.

Michael Keegan, President of People for the American Way called the Supreme Court riling a "terrible blow to the Voting Rights Act."

As the Supreme Court swerves further to the right, our constitutional liberties continue to take a beating. Today, the Supreme Court seriously undermined an important piece of the premier civil rights legislation of the past century-- legislation that civil rights heroes gave their lives for. This decision sends a chilling message to all those Americans who continue to face politically-motivated hurdles on their way to the ballot box.

In his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts pledged to behave like an umpire-- just calling balls and strikes, and staying out of the game. Today that umpire upended decades of civil rights law. His decision substitutes his own opinions for the findings of America’s elected representatives in Congress, who found numerous cases of ongoing, racially-based political gerrymandering and trickery. Moreover, it does so in an area in which the Constitution specifically and intentionally gives Congress wide discretion. Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act received near unanimous support in both houses of Congress just a few years ago, and was signed into law by President Bush. Today’s decision is a blatantly inappropriate exercise in legislating from the bench. Conservatives who have spent decades decrying judicial activism should take note.

In two separate cases yesterday, Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to fix the damage done by decisions handed down by our nation’s highest court. That need is even greater today. Congress should move quickly to enact a coverage formula under Section 4 to protect voters whose right to participate in our democracy was badly undermined today. The American people deserve no less.

So how did these 5 corporate whores and GOP political hacks wind up on the Supreme Court? Who's to blame? Glad you asked, especially in light of a tweet from Matt Canter, Deputy Executive Director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee:

These are the 5 right-wing extremists on the Court with some info about how each got there, chronologically. First came Reagan's second pick, Antonin Scalia, who got the job when Reagan elevated former GOP Arizona voter fraud operative William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice. Although Scalia is probably the most extreme ideological rightist appointed to the court since Jackson appointed Roger Taney in 1836, he faced no opposition from the Judiciary Committee and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Among the Democrats voting for him were Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Max Baucus, and Pat Leahy. Take a bow, guys.

Reagan's next appointment was Anthony Kennedy, who had previously drafted California Governor Reagan's pro-corporate and very reactionary tax policies. He was Reagan's third choice after the Senate rejected Bork (who almost made Scalia seem mainstreamish) and Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew after it came out he was a pothead. He was confirmed 97-0 in 1988. The same bunch of Democrats still kicking around today who voted for Scalia-- Biden, Levin, Baucus, and Leahy-- also voted for Kennedy.

Then we get Clarence Thomas, George H.W. Bush's second appointment-- and, ironically, the second African-American to serve on the Court. (Bush's first appointment was David Souter who has already retired.) Because Thomas was so clearly unqualified in every way, this was a very contentious confirmation process. Thomas' career has always been serving as a professional Uncle Tom for the GOP and he's easily the least qualified justice nominated to the Court in the 20th Century, Jeffrey Toobin remarking that he was the only "plausible" African American the GOP could come up with to replace Thurgood Marshall, who would be a lockstep corporate whore and right-wing ideologue. He hasn't disappointed. The American Bar Association was astounded about his unsuitability for the appointment. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 7-7 and sent his nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. He was confirmed by a 52-48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. All the normal Democrats (plus mainstream Republicans Bob Packwood and Jim Jeffords) voted against him. But 11 conservative Democrats, mostly from the South, joined the Republicans to confirm him. None of the Democrats are still in the Senate except Dick Shelby (AL), who soon after switched parties and joined the GOP.

The final two monsters on the Court, Roberts and Alito, were nominated by George Bush. Bush nominated Roberts to take over from Sandra Day O'Connor when she retired in 2005, but just as the process was getting underway, Rehnquist-- who was already horribly senile-- finally died. Bush realized they could slip Roberts-- a total Chamber of Commerce kind of guy-- in as Chief Justice. With Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden voting against him, the Judiciary Committee approved the nomination 13-5. The following week he was confirmed by the Senate 78-22, all the Republicans and exactly half the Democrats voting for him. Democrats still serving in the Senate today who voted to confirm Roberts:

• Max Baucus (MT)
• Tom Carper (DE)
• Tim Johnson (SD)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)
• Patrick Leahy (VT)
• Carl Levin (MI)
• Patty Murray (WA)
• Bill Nelson (FL)
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• Jay Rockefeller (WV)
• Ron Wyden (OR)

Do you think they would vote for him again today? I might add that among the other Democrats who voted to confirm Roberts were Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman (before he was kicked out of the party), and Blanche Lincoln. Among the 22 senators voting NO were Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

And the final piece of shit in a judicial robe, also nominated by Bush-- after his girlfriend Harriet Miers was laughed out of Washington by Democrats and Republicans-- was Sam Alito, another Big Business hack. Bush nominated him for the O'Connor seat in November, 2005 and he was approved by the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 party line vote. John Kerry decided to filibuster the nomination because Alito was so extreme. The filibuster was shut down in a 72-25 vote, paving the way for confirmation. The cloture vote was the one that counted and the Democrats still serving today who crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP to end the filibuster were:

• Max Baucus (MT)
• Maria Cantwell (WA)
• Tom Carper (DE)
• Tim Johnson (SD)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)
• Bill Nelson (FL)
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• Jay Rockefeller (WV)

This week Alito was caught making juvenile faces while women members of the Court read their opinions. Among the Democrats backing the filibuster were Obama, Feingold, Clinton and-- finally-- Leahy.

Read More