Supreme Court Preview: The Pope Casts a Long Shadow Over the New Term
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/supreme_court_preview_the_pope_casts_a_l
ong_shadow_over_the_new_term_201509/
Posted on Sep 29, 2015
By Bill Blum
Pope Francis is applauded Thursday as he arrives to address a joint
meeting of Congress. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP)
The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term Monday, so what follows may
surprise you. I'm not going to begin my annual court preview with a rundown
of the top pending cases (I'll get to them in due course), but with a few
questions and observations about Pope Francis' landmark visit to the United
States.
How many pope watchers and admirers, I wonder, noticed that only four of the
high court's members-Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor-showed up to hear
the pontiff address a joint session of Congress last week?
Among the missing were the tribunal's three most conservative voices, all
hard-core Republicans and ostensibly devout Catholics-Justices Antonin
Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. You might think they would have
wanted in on the celebration to demonstrate their fidelity, to see history
in the making, or perhaps just to receive a personal blessing or two. Then
again, you might be wrong.
So what gives? Was the nonappearance of the three judges a coincidence or
the result of unavoidable scheduling conflicts? Or was the right-wing
judicial troika sending a message of disapproval to Francis? After all,
they've done much the same in recent years to President Obama by boycotting
his State of the Union addresses.
Only Scalia, Thomas and Alito know the answers to these questions, and to be
fair, Alito spoke at the University of Kentucky College of Law on the same
day Francis addressed Congress. But I'm guessing the collective absence from
the pope's speech in the end had more to do with doctrinal differences than
happenstance or calendar commitments. Indeed, even allowing for the pope's
archaic stance on abortion and same-sex marriage, after hearing Francis talk
and reading his remarks there can be little doubt that he and the court's
three extremists reside at opposite ends of the moral universe.
From his espousal of the Golden Rule to his concern for climate change, his
kindhearted attitude toward immigration and his antipathy to the greed of
unfettered capitalism, the pope's views on many of the most essential issues
of our time are irreconcilable with the increasingly coarse and
mean-spirited jurisprudence of Scalia and his cohorts and, all too often,
the court as a whole.
Still, as critical as the subjects of climate change and immigration are,
from an immediate, practical standpoint, what fundamentally sets the pope at
odds with Scalia, Thomas and Alito-and what may well have made them too
uncomfortable to attend the papal sermon on the eve of another court term-is
Francis' full-throated opposition to the death penalty.
As the pope told Congress:
"The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend
human life at every stage of its development.
"This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate
at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am
convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human
person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit
from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother
bishops in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the
death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to
all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never
exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation."
In complete contradiction to Francis' teachings, the court ended its 2014
term last June with a heated 5-4 decision in Glossip v. Gross, authored by
Alito, that upheld Oklahoma's newly adopted three-drug lethal injection
protocol for the execution of condemned prisoners.
As I've written in this column before, quoting professor Steven Schwinn of
the John Marshall School of Law in Chicago, Alito's Glossip opinion was "an
exercise in circular reasoning that has established a new set of 'Wonderland
rules' for method-of-execution claims."
"Because capital punishment is legal," Alito declared, "there must be a
constitutional means of carrying it out." Surveying the history of the death
penalty, he explained that while methods of execution (from hanging to
electrocution, firing squads, lethal gas and injections) have changed over
the years, the Supreme Court "has never invalidated a State's chosen
procedure."
Not content with Alito's grim pronouncement, Scalia added a venomous
concurrence in Glossip that began with the demented salutation: "Welcome to
Groundhog Day." From Scalia's perspective, condemned prisoners have no
business taking up the court's precious time with futile objections to being
executed.
What offended Scalia most, however, was that Justice Stephen Breyer
suggested in an impassioned dissenting opinion that the nation's experiment
with creating a rational, reliable and fair system of capital punishment had
failed and that the time had come to re-evaluate the entire system's
constitutionality. Breyer's opinion marked the first time since the late
Justice Harry Blackmun's 1994 dissent in a case from Texas that an active
member of the court had formally expressed an abolitionist outlook.
Scalia remains deeply afraid for the death penalty's future. In a speech
delivered at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn., two days before the pope's
Washington homily, Scalia said he "wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme
Court overturns the death penalty." The court, he charged, is "terribly
unrepresentative of our country," lamenting that except for Clarence Thomas,
the panel includes no one from the South, where capital punishment is still
widely practiced.
Scalia's fears-and the pope's admonitions-will be tested in the first month
of the new term, when the court hears death penalty cases that will once
again expose the cruelty and irrationality of capital punishment. These
cases and the other big-ticket items that have thus far made it onto the
official docket include the following, broken down by name and subject
matter:
The Death Penalty
Set for argument on Oct. 7 are two companion appeals-Kansas v. Carr and
Kansas v. Gleason-that will require Scalia and his colleagues to re-examine
the legal instructions given to juries at the conclusion of the penalty
phase of a capital trial to guide them in weighing defense evidence
presented in mitigation of punishment.
The Kansas cases will be followed on Oct. 13, when the court will consider
Florida's unique death-penalty sentencing practices in Hurst v. Florida.
Alone among the states, Florida permits juries to recommend the death
penalty by a simple 7-5 majority vote. Florida is also one of a handful of
states that permit judges to override jury recommendations of life in
prison. Such procedures, abolitionists argue, undermine the Sixth Amendment
right to trial by an impartial jury as well as the Eighth Amendment ban on
cruel and unusual punishment.
A fourth death penalty case, slated for argument Nov. 2, is Foster v.
Chatman, from Georgia, dealing with claims of racial discrimination and the
exclusion of African-Americans in jury selection.
Taken separately or together, the court's lineup of death-penalty suits
could either assuage or heighten Scalia's trepidations that the days of
capital punishment are numbered.
Affirmative Action
Abigail Fisher, the young woman who was denied admission to the University
of Texas, Austin, is back with a second challenge (Fisher v. University of
Texas) to the Lone Star State's affirmative action program for higher
education. Under that program, students graduating in the top 10 percent of
their high school classes are granted automatic admission to any public
university in the state. Other UT applicants are evaluated under a
"holistic" review process that may take a student's racial background into
account for purposes of achieving the goal of on-campus diversity.
Fisher was recruited to contest the Texas plan on 14th Amendment
equal-protection grounds by Edward Blum (no relation), a right-wing
libertarian who runs the Project on Fair Representation, a nonprofit legal
defense fund located in Austin. The project has bankrolled other
race-focused cases in the Supreme Court, including Shelby County v. Holder,
the landmark 2012 decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act.
In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court remanded Fisher's lawsuit to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals for more rigorous constitutional analysis. To the
surprise of many observers, the circuit court upheld the 10 percent program,
prompting the Supreme Court to take another look at the case.
This time, the prospects look especially dim for the survival of race-based
affirmative action, which had been hanging by a legal thread even before
Abigail Fisher came along. With Scalia's track record of thundering against
all forms of "racial entitlements" and with few staunch defenders on the
court apart from Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg, affirmative action's
epitaph could be written by the close of the present term at the end of
June. No oral argument date has been set.
Apportionment
Another lawsuit from Texas financed by the Project on Fair Representation
and also awaiting a date for oral argument is Evenwel v. Abbott, a case with
profound political ramifications for the way states draw legislative
district boundary lines.
Under decades-old Supreme Court precedents, legislative districts must be
devised as closely as possible to the ideal of "one person, one vote,"
roughly equalizing populations in each district so that no individual's vote
carries more weight than any other's when electing state and federal
representatives. Left undecided by the high court's prior cases, however, is
whether the "one person, one vote" rule requires states to use total
population figures, including children and noncitizens who can't vote, for
drafting district lines or merely the number of registered voters.
The fair-representation project isn't asking the question for abstract,
academic reasons. It wants the Supreme Court to hold that registered voters
are the operative population group in order to weaken the political clout of
Hispanics, who lean Democratic and tend to have big families with young
children and whose communities also include large numbers of immigrants.
With such people excluded for apportionment purposes, Texas Hispanics could
legally be gerrymandered into fewer voting districts, diluting their
electoral potential.
Union Busting
With Alito crafting bitterly divided majority opinions, the Supreme Court
has taken dead aim at public-sector unions, the last bastion of organized
labor in America and a key source of campaign money for liberal political
causes and candidates.
In 2012 (Knox v. SEIU) and 2014 (Harris v. Quinn), the court came perilously
close to overturning the long-established "fair-share" system, which
requires employees who exercise their right not to join a union nonetheless
to pay a percentage of regular union dues to cover the costs associated with
collective bargaining and contract administration. Fair-share fees exclude
dues spent on political measures.
The fair-share system is under review once more this term in Friedrichs v.
California Teachers Association. Brought on behalf of 10 Orange County
schoolteachers and the Christian Educators Association International by the
Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights, the case seeks to end
fair-share arrangements, threatening to turn the nation's entire public
sector into one enormous "right-to-work" jurisdiction.
The case, as I've noted previously, is based on a twisted interpretation of
the First Amendment, which asserts that mandatory fair-share fees are a form
of compelled speech that undermines the rights of nonunion workers to
freedom of association.
Oral argument has not yet been set.
Pending Petitions, the 2016 Elections, and the Pope's Long Shadow
Before the court concludes its business next summer, it definitely will add
other important cases to its docket. Among the most prominent under
consideration are two police-misconduct suits from Texas (Mullenix v. Luna)
and California (City of Los Angeles v. Contreras) dealing with the
appropriate use of deadly force by law enforcement. Although each case
involves Latinos, each could have an impact on the Black Lives Matter
movement.
But no matter which cases the court elects to add as the current term
unfolds, the presidential election will loom ever closer. As always, the
court will be swept up in the quadrennial national debate over its proper
role as the final arbiter of constitutional rights.
By then, of course, the pope will be long gone from the U.S. But his message
of tolerance, fairness and equality will linger, casting a shadow over the
deliberations of the justices-Scalia, Thomas, Alito and the rest-every time
they violate those values.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
Supreme Court Preview: The Pope Casts a Long Shadow Over the New Term
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/supreme_court_preview_the_pope_casts_a_l
ong_shadow_over_the_new_term_201509/
Posted on Sep 29, 2015
By Bill Blum
Pope Francis is applauded Thursday as he arrives to address a joint meeting
of Congress. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP)
The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term Monday, so what follows may
surprise you. I'm not going to begin my annual court preview with a rundown
of the top pending cases (I'll get to them in due course), but with a few
questions and observations about Pope Francis' landmark visit to the United
States.
How many pope watchers and admirers, I wonder, noticed that only four of the
high court's members-Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor-showed up to hear
the pontiff address a joint session of Congress last week?
Among the missing were the tribunal's three most conservative voices, all
hard-core Republicans and ostensibly devout Catholics-Justices Antonin
Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. You might think they would have
wanted in on the celebration to demonstrate their fidelity, to see history
in the making, or perhaps just to receive a personal blessing or two. Then
again, you might be wrong.
So what gives? Was the nonappearance of the three judges a coincidence or
the result of unavoidable scheduling conflicts? Or was the right-wing
judicial troika sending a message of disapproval to Francis? After all,
they've done much the same in recent years to President Obama by boycotting
his State of the Union addresses.
Only Scalia, Thomas and Alito know the answers to these questions, and to be
fair, Alito spoke at the University of Kentucky College of Law on the same
day Francis addressed Congress. But I'm guessing the collective absence from
the pope's speech in the end had more to do with doctrinal differences than
happenstance or calendar commitments. Indeed, even allowing for the pope's
archaic stance on abortion and same-sex marriage, after hearing Francis talk
and reading his remarks there can be little doubt that he and the court's
three extremists reside at opposite ends of the moral universe.
From his espousal of the Golden Rule to his concern for climate change, his
kindhearted attitude toward immigration and his antipathy to the greed of
unfettered capitalism, the pope's views on many of the most essential issues
of our time are irreconcilable with the increasingly coarse and
mean-spirited jurisprudence of Scalia and his cohorts and, all too often,
the court as a whole.
Still, as critical as the subjects of climate change and immigration are,
from an immediate, practical standpoint, what fundamentally sets the pope at
odds with Scalia, Thomas and Alito-and what may well have made them too
uncomfortable to attend the papal sermon on the eve of another court term-is
Francis' full-throated opposition to the death penalty.
As the pope told Congress:
"The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend
human life at every stage of its development.
"This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate
at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am
convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human
person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit
from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother
bishops in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the
death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to
all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never
exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation."
In complete contradiction to Francis' teachings, the court ended its 2014
term last June with a heated 5-4 decision in Glossip v. Gross, authored by
Alito, that upheld Oklahoma's newly adopted three-drug lethal injection
protocol for the execution of condemned prisoners.
As I've written in this column before, quoting professor Steven Schwinn of
the John Marshall School of Law in Chicago, Alito's Glossip opinion was "an
exercise in circular reasoning that has established a new set of 'Wonderland
rules' for method-of-execution claims."
"Because capital punishment is legal," Alito declared, "there must be a
constitutional means of carrying it out." Surveying the history of the death
penalty, he explained that while methods of execution (from hanging to
electrocution, firing squads, lethal gas and injections) have changed over
the years, the Supreme Court "has never invalidated a State's chosen
procedure."
Not content with Alito's grim pronouncement, Scalia added a venomous
concurrence in Glossip that began with the demented salutation: "Welcome to
Groundhog Day." From Scalia's perspective, condemned prisoners have no
business taking up the court's precious time with futile objections to being
executed.
What offended Scalia most, however, was that Justice Stephen Breyer
suggested in an impassioned dissenting opinion that the nation's experiment
with creating a rational, reliable and fair system of capital punishment had
failed and that the time had come to re-evaluate the entire system's
constitutionality. Breyer's opinion marked the first time since the late
Justice Harry Blackmun's 1994 dissent in a case from Texas that an active
member of the court had formally expressed an abolitionist outlook.
Scalia remains deeply afraid for the death penalty's future. In a speech
delivered at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn., two days before the pope's
Washington homily, Scalia said he "wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme
Court overturns the death penalty." The court, he charged, is "terribly
unrepresentative of our country," lamenting that except for Clarence Thomas,
the panel includes no one from the South, where capital punishment is still
widely practiced.
Scalia's fears-and the pope's admonitions-will be tested in the first month
of the new term, when the court hears death penalty cases that will once
again expose the cruelty and irrationality of capital punishment. These
cases and the other big-ticket items that have thus far made it onto the
official docket include the following, broken down by name and subject
matter:
The Death Penalty
Set for argument on Oct. 7 are two companion appeals-Kansas v. Carr and
Kansas v. Gleason-that will require Scalia and his colleagues to re-examine
the legal instructions given to juries at the conclusion of the penalty
phase of a capital trial to guide them in weighing defense evidence
presented in mitigation of punishment.
The Kansas cases will be followed on Oct. 13, when the court will consider
Florida's unique death-penalty sentencing practices in Hurst v. Florida.
Alone among the states, Florida permits juries to recommend the death
penalty by a simple 7-5 majority vote. Florida is also one of a handful of
states that permit judges to override jury recommendations of life in
prison. Such procedures, abolitionists argue, undermine the Sixth Amendment
right to trial by an impartial jury as well as the Eighth Amendment ban on
cruel and unusual punishment.
A fourth death penalty case, slated for argument Nov. 2, is Foster v.
Chatman, from Georgia, dealing with claims of racial discrimination and the
exclusion of African-Americans in jury selection.
Taken separately or together, the court's lineup of death-penalty suits
could either assuage or heighten Scalia's trepidations that the days of
capital punishment are numbered.
Affirmative Action
Abigail Fisher, the young woman who was denied admission to the University
of Texas, Austin, is back with a second challenge (Fisher v. University of
Texas) to the Lone Star State's affirmative action program for higher
education. Under that program, students graduating in the top 10 percent of
their high school classes are granted automatic admission to any public
university in the state. Other UT applicants are evaluated under a
"holistic" review process that may take a student's racial background into
account for purposes of achieving the goal of on-campus diversity.
Fisher was recruited to contest the Texas plan on 14th Amendment
equal-protection grounds by Edward Blum (no relation), a right-wing
libertarian who runs the Project on Fair Representation, a nonprofit legal
defense fund located in Austin. The project has bankrolled other
race-focused cases in the Supreme Court, including Shelby County v. Holder,
the landmark 2012 decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act.
In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court remanded Fisher's lawsuit to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals for more rigorous constitutional analysis. To the
surprise of many observers, the circuit court upheld the 10 percent program,
prompting the Supreme Court to take another look at the case.
This time, the prospects look especially dim for the survival of race-based
affirmative action, which had been hanging by a legal thread even before
Abigail Fisher came along. With Scalia's track record of thundering against
all forms of "racial entitlements" and with few staunch defenders on the
court apart from Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg, affirmative action's
epitaph could be written by the close of the present term at the end of
June. No oral argument date has been set.
Apportionment
Another lawsuit from Texas financed by the Project on Fair Representation
and also awaiting a date for oral argument is Evenwel v. Abbott, a case with
profound political ramifications for the way states draw legislative
district boundary lines.
Under decades-old Supreme Court precedents, legislative districts must be
devised as closely as possible to the ideal of "one person, one vote,"
roughly equalizing populations in each district so that no individual's vote
carries more weight than any other's when electing state and federal
representatives. Left undecided by the high court's prior cases, however, is
whether the "one person, one vote" rule requires states to use total
population figures, including children and noncitizens who can't vote, for
drafting district lines or merely the number of registered voters.
The fair-representation project isn't asking the question for abstract,
academic reasons. It wants the Supreme Court to hold that registered voters
are the operative population group in order to weaken the political clout of
Hispanics, who lean Democratic and tend to have big families with young
children and whose communities also include large numbers of immigrants.
With such people excluded for apportionment purposes, Texas Hispanics could
legally be gerrymandered into fewer voting districts, diluting their
electoral potential.
Union Busting
With Alito crafting bitterly divided majority opinions, the Supreme Court
has taken dead aim at public-sector unions, the last bastion of organized
labor in America and a key source of campaign money for liberal political
causes and candidates.
In 2012 (Knox v. SEIU) and 2014 (Harris v. Quinn), the court came perilously
close to overturning the long-established "fair-share" system, which
requires employees who exercise their right not to join a union nonetheless
to pay a percentage of regular union dues to cover the costs associated with
collective bargaining and contract administration. Fair-share fees exclude
dues spent on political measures.
The fair-share system is under review once more this term in Friedrichs v.
California Teachers Association. Brought on behalf of 10 Orange County
schoolteachers and the Christian Educators Association International by the
Washington, D.C.-based Center for Individual Rights, the case seeks to end
fair-share arrangements, threatening to turn the nation's entire public
sector into one enormous "right-to-work" jurisdiction.
The case, as I've noted previously, is based on a twisted interpretation of
the First Amendment, which asserts that mandatory fair-share fees are a form
of compelled speech that undermines the rights of nonunion workers to
freedom of association.
Oral argument has not yet been set.
Pending Petitions, the 2016 Elections, and the Pope's Long Shadow
Before the court concludes its business next summer, it definitely will add
other important cases to its docket. Among the most prominent under
consideration are two police-misconduct suits from Texas (Mullenix v. Luna)
and California (City of Los Angeles v. Contreras) dealing with the
appropriate use of deadly force by law enforcement. Although each case
involves Latinos, each could have an impact on the Black Lives Matter
movement.
But no matter which cases the court elects to add as the current term
unfolds, the presidential election will loom ever closer. As always, the
court will be swept up in the quadrennial national debate over its proper
role as the final arbiter of constitutional rights.
By then, of course, the pope will be long gone from the U.S. But his message
of tolerance, fairness and equality will linger, casting a shadow over the
deliberations of the justices-Scalia, Thomas, Alito and the rest-every time
they violate those values.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_9_most_expensive_medicines_in_the_wo
rldcourtesy_of_big_pharma_20150930/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_9_most_expensive_medicines_in_the_wo
rldcourtesy_of_big_pharma_20150930/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_9_most_expensive_medicines_in_the_wo
rldcourtesy_of_big_pharma_20150930/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/bubbles_always_burst_the_education_of_an
_economist_20150930/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/bubbles_always_burst_the_education_of_an
_economist_20150930/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/bubbles_always_burst_the_education_of_an
_economist_20150930/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/its_safe_to_be_paranoid_in_the_us_201509
30/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/its_safe_to_be_paranoid_in_the_us_201509
30/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/its_safe_to_be_paranoid_in_the_us_201509
30/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/elephant_grass_could_offer_viable_altern
ative_to_coal_20150930/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/elephant_grass_could_offer_viable_altern
ative_to_coal_20150930/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/elephant_grass_could_offer_viable_altern
ative_to_coal_20150930/ http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
