The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: scotus
U.S. Court

Far Right Lauds Affirmative Action Decision -- And Aims At Civil Rights Act

As the Supreme Court handed down its decision that the race-conscious admission policies of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively dismantling affirmative action in higher education, right-wing media poured praise on the conservative justices for ending what they claim is a “discriminatory” and “racist” practice.

On June 29, the Supreme Court’s decisions in both SFFA v. Presidentand Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina essentially decided that race can no longer be a factor in college admissions, striking down affirmative action. Both cases involved Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit with financial ties to anti-civil rights strategists, suing Harvard University and the University of North Carolina over their admissions processes that the group claimed violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment, respectively. The elimination of affirmative action has been a right-wing policy goal for years and has been bankrolled through SFFA in order to see its elimination come to fruition.

Right-wing media continuously amplified their hatred of affirmative action leading up to its elimination, platforming guests who view the policy as “un-American.” Some right-wing figures that are celebrating the end of affirmative action have now begun calling for the end of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and “disparate impact” regulations, revealing their ultimate goal to destroy civil rights protections in the United States.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dismantle affirmative action coincides with a network of “parental choice” activists and right-wing media figures demanding radical changes to the U.S. education system. Anti-critical race theory proponents like Christopher Rufo and Russ Vought have worked hand-in-hand with right-wing media to mount aggressive smear campaigns against critical race theory and diversity policies. These groups have deliberately tried to gut the 14th Amendment, which would create massive obstacles to communities of color in education.

As part of their attacks on education, Fox News hosts have already started calling for the destruction of the public school system, arguing that the U.S. should “defund government education” and replace it with private school vouchers. The network has also spread misinformation about critical race theory, even claiming that proponents want to “brainwash your child so that they feel guilty about being born white.” Right-wing media attacks on the education system serve to minimize the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action will have on diversity and equity in higher education.

Right-wing media agreed with Supreme Court that affirmative action is “unconstitutional,” labeling it a “racist” and “discriminatory” practice:

  • Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk praised the decision, tweeting, “Finally the Court has corrected another awful 70s mistake, and ruled that racially discriminatory college admissions are unconstitutional.”
  • Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich called affirmative action “unconstitutional and anti-American, for college admissions and everywhere else. This is an earthquake that should upend the left’s racist standards, not just in education but in employment at every level.”
  • On America’s Newsroom, former Trump official Roger Severino claimed that “45% of the students of African American descent admitted to Harvard would not have made it according to Harvard's own statistics had they not done the racial balancing in the name of diversity. Now, Harvard only has 8% of conservatives that are admitted students, 82% of Harvard students come from wealthy backgrounds. It’s not really about diversity. It was about racial balancing.”
  • The Daily Caller published an article, titled “Supreme Court Rules Against Racial Prejudice In College Admissions,” framing affirmative action as being discriminatory.
  • Newsmax’s Justine Brooke Murray tweeted that people “already knew” affirmative action was discriminatory prior to the Supreme Court decision, arguing that prospective students “should not be judged by the color of their skin but by content of their character!”
  • Racist livestreamer Steven Crowder claimed that because of the Supreme Court decision, “Asian students can no longer be discriminated against.”

Some right-wing figures praised former President Donald Trump for his Supreme Court picks who helped bring affirmative action to an end:

  • Former Trump adviser and white nationalist Stephen Miller called the decision a “colossal win for USA. Colossal achievement for 45 in shaping the Court to realize this victory.”
  • Failed congressional candidate and “proud Islamophobe” Laura Loomer celebrated the decision as a “great day” that “was only made possible today thanks to President Donald J Trump’s nomination of 3 SCOTUS justices.”
  • Newsmax contributor Karoline Leavitt claimed that “President Donald Trump made today's historic decision to end the racist college admissions process possible because he delivered on his promise to appoint constitutionalist justices.”

Despite polling on affirmative action showing high rates of approval with marginalized groups, right-wing media argued that the Supreme Court’s decision was “popular” with all Americans:

  • Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly tweeted, “Race-based admissions will still continue bc these institutions will find sneaky ways of doing it, but they will no longer have the absurd cover of law. THESE POLICIES HAVE BEEN HURTING MINORITY GROUPS FOR DECADES. And ppl of all races oppose them. This is a great day for America.”
  • Fox News Radio host Guy Benson tweeted, “We are told SCOTUS is ‘losing legitimacy’ by issuing rulings that are ‘out of touch’ or unpopular. That misunderstands the justices’ function, of course, but many of the same people who’ve engaged in such concern trolling will be screaming over today’s decision.” Benson also posted an image of polling data, seemingly ignoring that the results showed that among American adults familiar with affirmative action, nearly every racial category mostly saw it as a “good thing.”

Fringe and right-wing accounts also celebrated the decision as a victory for white people and discussed what’s “next up”:

  • Following the decision, Rufo tweeted: “The Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action in college admissions. It's time to go further: abolish DEI bureaucracies, prohibit race-based hiring, eliminate the ‘disparate impact’ doctrine, and restore the principle of colorblind equality in all of our institutions.”
  • Gab founder and virulent antisemite Andrew Torba posted, “Affirmative action is dead. Roe is dead. Next up: the Civil Rights Act so we can restore the freedom of association in this country.”
  • White nationalist vlogger Steve Franssen tweeted “LETS GO WHITE RACE” in response to the decision.
  • On Gab, failed Senate candidate and Proud Boys supporter Lauren Witzke posted on Gab, “How many hopes and dreams have been destroyed for White people due to this vile policy? Affirmative Action is truly one of the biggest stains on America. Overqualified people were rejected from jobs and schools due to the color of their skin. It’s been unconstitutional from the start. It’s time to put an END to the cruel and evil practice of Affirmative Action.”
  • Far-right account Write Winger posted on Gab, “With race-based admissions being struck down at colleges, now is the time for White people to claim their space in this oh so diverse and inclusive environment, and I’ll tell you how you personally can help. If your school or employer has or does anything based on race, I want you to politely ask, in writing preferably via email, how you can go about creating the same for White people.”
  • Author Padraig Martin posted on Gab, “While Affirmative Action harmed hundreds of thousands of qualified White applicants over the past five decades, nobody gave a damn. How many aspiring White applicants from low income homes were denied economic advancement because they were White? I appreciate this decision, but just remember - if you are White, the United States government still hates you for being White and actively seeks your displacement and replacement with its myriad of anti-White policies.”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Gorsuch

Gorsuch Concealed Property Sale To Lawyer With 'At Least 22' High Court Cases

A property in Colorado partly owned by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was on the market for nearly two years with no bites. Then Gorsuch was confirmed to the court and within nine days the property sold, Politico reports. Gorsuch reported the proceeds of the sale in his federal disclosure forms, but somehow missed the box where he was supposed to report to whom he sold the property. That raises once again the thorny problem of Supreme Court ethics, or lack thereof.

Gorsuch did report the money he made from the sale on federal disclosure forms. What he didn’t disclose was the buyer: Brian Duffy, chief executive of Greenberg Traurig,. that just happens to be a powerhouse law firm that has regular business before the Supreme Court.

Politico found that Greenberg Traurig had been before the court in 22 cases since Gorsuch was seated, either presenting cases or filing amicus briefs. In the dozen cases where Gorsuch’s opinion was recorded, he sided with them eight times and against them in four. That included one very political and significant case overturning Obama-era rules limiting carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, a ruling that limits the government’s role in fighting climate change.

At least Gorsuch bothered to report the sale of the Colorado property, which is more than his colleague Clarence Thomas deigned to do when his very good and remarkably generous friend Harlan Crow helped him out on some real estate deals. That included buying Thomas’ mother’s house, completing an extensive renovation of it, and then allowing her to live there rent-free.

But Gorsuch’s failure to disclose that Duffy was the buyer is potentially a violation of federal disclosure laws, as Kedric Payne, director of ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, reads them. Payne told Politico that “investments in LLCs require more details than the justice includes in his financial disclosures.“

“This transaction appears to also require naming the buyer. The public has a right to know that justices will fully comply with disclosure rules instead of providing only a tiny peek into their financial disclosures,” he said. He did stress that there aren’t enough facts available now to determine whether it was a simple omission or a violation.

Gorsuch did not comment on the story. Duffy told Politico that he has never met Gorsuch, or personally argued before the court. “I’ve never spoken to him,” Duffy said. “I’ve never met him.”

But plenty of Greenberg’s colleagues sure have—he’s not just CEO, but the head of the whole team of 600 lawyers. It could be a coincidence that the property Gorsuch and his co-owners had been trying to unload for two years sold immediately after his confirmation. It could be coincidental that the buyer was someone with a vested interest in the Supreme Court.

In fact, there’s no rule saying Supreme Court justices absolutely can’t have financial dealings with people who have had or might someday have an interest in court decisions. However, they are supposed to check their own behavior and recuse themselves from cases involving people with whom they have had such relationships.

They are also required by federal disclosure laws to report those dealing in their financial disclosures. Gorsuch didn’t do that, either by simple omission or on purpose. We don’t know which, and that’s part of the problem, too, because there are so few mechanisms to ensure transparency from the Supreme Court. There is a code of ethics for the federal judiciary, but the Supreme Court justices are exempted from it. They are left to police themselves.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin issued a typically concerned statement to Politico. “We have seen a steady stream of revelations regarding Supreme Court Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and of public servants,” said Durbin. “The need for Supreme Court ethics reform is clear, and if the Court does not take adequate action, Congress must. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be closely examining these matters in the coming weeks,” said Durbin.

The Supreme Court has had plenty of opportunity to take that action, for years and years and years, and it has not. It is absolutely time for Congress to act, and that starts with Durbin and his committee.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Can The Supreme Court's Ratings Sink Lower? They Just Did

Can The Supreme Court's Ratings Sink Lower? They Just Did

The U.S. Supreme Court notched yet another all-time low in its approval rating, this time in a Quinnipiac University poll.

The survey found that a 54 percent majority of Americans disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, while just 35% approve.

Registered voters expressed nearly the same level of discontent at 36 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval—the lowest job approval among registered voters in the survey since Quinnipiac began asking the question in 2004.

It's yet another new low for a court that has seen its reputation take an abrupt nosedive ever since it overturned a 50-year precedent on abortion rights this summer.

In June, Gallup found public confidence in the high court had sunk to just 25 percent, a historic all-time low since Gallup began tracking the measure in 1973. Confidence in the court stood at 45 percent in that May '73 survey, taken just months after the high court had established a constitutional right to abortion in its January ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

How The Supreme Court Is Enabling GOP Authoritarians

How The Supreme Court Is Enabling GOP Authoritarians

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Filipovic began with an overview of the previous presidential elections and how Republican presidents were elected in the first place. She noted that the most recent ones managed to win only by way of the Electoral College; not by popular vote. That stipulation suggests the presidential election was determined by a minority as opposed to the opinion of most Americans who voted.

Subsequently, those Republican presidents elected by the minority, are the ones responsible for stacking the courts with conservative judges and officials who typically lean to the far right.

"Of the nine justices sitting on the current court, five – all of them in the majority opinion that overturned Roe – were appointed by presidents who initially lost the popular vote; the three appointed by Donald Trump were confirmed by senators who represent a minority of Americans," Filipovic explained. "A majority of this court, in other words, were not appointed by a process that is representative of the will of the American people."

She went on to rehash the circumstances of SCOTUS Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett's appointments to the high court. "Two were appointed via starkly undemocratic means, put in place by bad actors willing to change the rules to suit their needs," she wrote. "Neil Gorsuch only has his seat because Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, blocked the ability of Barack Obama to nominate Merrick Garland – or anyone – to a supreme court seat, claiming that, because it was an election year, voters should get to decide."

She added, "Then, Donald Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett in a radically rushed and incomplete, incoherent process – in an election year."

As a result of court stacking, far-right judges have "stripped from American women the right to control our own bodies" and Filipovic has highlighted the problematic and contradictory aspects of it.

"They have summarily placed women into a novel category of person with fewer rights not just than other people, but than fertilized eggs and corpses. After all, no one else is forced to donate their organs for the survival of another – not parents to their children, not the dead to the living. It is only fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses that are newly entitled to this right to use another’s body and organs against that other’s will; it is only women and other people who can get pregnant who are now subject to these unparalleled, radical demands."

Filipovic also noted that it raises a compelling fundamental question.

"This raises a fundamental question: can a country be properly understood as a democracy – an entity in which government derives its power from the people – if it subjugates half of its population, putting them into a category of sub-person with fewer rights, freedoms, and liberties?"

According to the latest disturbing trend, Filipovic explained why the answer appears to be "no."

"The global trend suggests that the answer to that is no," she wrote. "A clear pattern has emerged in the past few decades: as countries democratize, they tend to liberalize women’s rights, and they expand abortion and other reproductive rights. Luckily for the women of the world, this is where a great many nations are moving."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.