Justice Ginsberg Way-off on Roe v. Wade

Update: Erwin Chemerinsky writes "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court after the completion of the current term in June. She turned 81 on Saturday and by all accounts she is healthy and physically and mentally able to continue. But only by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values." (LA Times)

Diane P. Wood, Margaret Raymond, and so many brilliant, young jurists are ready that Ginsberg's obviously outstanding tenure aside, not stepping down is selfish in the face of American misogyny and the brand of authoritarianism that is arising now from underground into the judiciary.
---Time for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to get off the Court

What ahistorical spasms have taken ahold of Justice Ginsberg?

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993-present) told an audience at the University of Chicago Law School on Saturday night that a lack of 'judicial restraint' in the court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade gave abortion opponents a 'clear target' that continues to fuel anti-choice activism 40 years later," notes Katie McDonough this morning in Salon.

A clear target?

Women have been the clear target of the Catholic Church hierarchy and free roaming misogyny since the inception of the United States of America.

Roe stopped the enforcement of anti-choice state laws outlawing abortion.

Salon's McDonough also references similar comments that Ginsberg made in April:

As noted by the New York Times editorial board and Yale Law School professors Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel, Ginsburg’s previously-asserted idea that the court got 'ahead of public opinion' on abortion and 'short-circuited' an evolving political process at the state level is deeply problematic.

If one follows Ginsberg's logic, the Court should never protect the constitutional rights of minorities in the face of majority opinion because that would make political targets of minorities by assorted majority bigots and oppressive, tyrannical law of which America has a long, shameful tradition.

Ginsberg goes on pursuing several lines of thought, all of which do not demonstrate a clear hold of any conception of the civil rights of Americans, and certainly not specifically the constitutional imperative to protect free choice, an issue that props up the GOP and Tea Party as major political forces.

Ginsberg's public forays into political strategy are ill-conceived and foolish for a sitting justice of the Court, and her constitutional jurisprudence is suspect.

Ginsberg is 80-year-old.

And she is no William O. Douglas or Robert Jackson. Ginsberg should resign at the end of term in June.

The stakes are way too high with this reckless, statist Roberts-Scalia court and the forces of authoritarianism that hold sway in the majority of states.

SC Whites Ruling Has No "Staying Power," Says Ginsberg

Update: From the NAACP: "Today's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is a step backward from the goal of equal employment opportunity. A narrow majority of the Court created a new legal standard that places additional hurdles in front of employers seeking to fulfill their obligations under this nation's core antidiscrimination law. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is disappointed that five Justices departed from well-established precedents that were properly applied by the courts below."

More evidence that the U.S. Supreme Court has drifted into never-never land on matters of race.

In Ricci v. DeStefano (07-1428 & 08-328), the white firefighters case, the Roberts-led court again proposes a nation where racism against blacks is a distant memory.

Another 5-4 majority opinion for the rightwing imagination, this time written by Justice Kennedy.

Justice Ginsberg is harsh in her dissent.

"The Court’s order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power. ... The Court’s recitation of the facts leaves out important parts of the story," said Justice Ginsberg in her opinion read from the bench.

Kennedy, 73, is a swing vote who has mostly voted with the Court's Soviet bloc - Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Scalia - on cases involving race.

Howl Against Censorship, Howl, 50 Years Later

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Our Crisis

As the corporate bought-and-paid-for Blue Dogs do their worst to ensure that health care reform is not universal, President Obama faces another problem: The economy and jobs are foremost on the public mind.

And the objective of providing universal care is akin to throwing a man falling from a building a steak dinner.

Health care needs to be done, if nothing else for the long-term fiscal health of the country, but the obvious threat to the project is that those who profit from making health care a commodity and product have a lot of money that can buy a lot of politicians.

Today's Republican Party and its Blue Dog allies have already proven that throwing the country into fiscal crisis is of no concern, and neither is health care costs.

As for the economy and jobs, Carl Ginsberg has a piece out in CounterPunch, Our Crisis, Their Gain, capturing the cause of the growing populist resentment.

There is no denying the inequitable manner in which the government is addressing the economic crisis. I have to believe that there is a political strategy in this, I just don't know what that would be.

Writes Ginsberg:

For some, joblessness is the antithesis of crisis. It is opportunity. People without work equates to competition for employment which means low wages which means enhanced profits. In case you haven’t noticed, the stock market is up. Bond sales by businesses were $570 billion in Q1, a record…. Net financial investment in Q1 was $340 billion, also a record. Go Go. ...

Back to your crisis: The banks are now aggressively pressing people who are delinquent on loans and mortgages in order to extract what they can, charge usurious interest and fees (thank you, Joe Biden), hound you --- to capitalize on your crisis. That is the business model Barack Obama invested in for all of us. Small wonder JP Morgan CEO James Dimon invited White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to visit with his board of directors.

Had President Obama taken our trillions and set up what William Greider calls for in the current Nation magazine, a development fund for long-term capital investment, or what Mike Davis has described, a national debt bank to relieve excessive consumer and mortgage debt, your government would be addressing your crisis. But of course there’s plenty of time for that.

America Entrusted Roe to Democrats; Party and Identity Politics Pissed Choice Away

Democrats Are Incompetent

Update: Biden says, "I am not prepared to make those judgements now," on codifying Roe or abolishing filibuster to help protect women's reproductive choice.
Actually, now would be a good time to make those "judgements."
---
Chants of "Do something, Democrats," rang out in D.C. last night, Reuters reports.

Wrong party. Democrats don't do things.

The chants for action took place at a demonstration outside the U.S. Supreme Court following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion eviscerating Roe v. Wade, (Politico) in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, designed by activists to overturn Roe.

Following oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in Dec 2021, Democrat senators vowed that they may be open to considering and looking at the issue of not doing "nothing."

Seriously, that was the Democrat reaction last year.

As millions of women stand to lose their right to choose, that's the best congressional Democrats and Pres Biden could do, as reported by the Washington Post last Dec, four months ago.

Here's a quote from a leading Democrat senator exemplifying Democrat floundering on the proposed effort to expand the number of Court justices: "I’m not ready to say we need to change the number of justices," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said. "[W]e need to take a look at how the court functions."

Morons.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg refused to resign after being diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer in 2013, to Democrat cheers. Way to live female empowerment, Ginsberg, a critic of Roe, who seven years later bequeathed her seat to a lifelong foe of reproductive choice.

Hillary Clinton and corporatist Democrats rigged the 2016 Democrat precedential primary. Female empowerment, right? Trump nominated three Court justices, the margin Supreme Court politicians needed to reverse Roe.

If you believe the loss of reproductive choice will goad Democrats into action to safeguard reproductive rights, you are deranged.

I don’t want to hear one Democrat whine or fundraise or talk about how the Republicans are big bad meanies today. I want to hear how they’re going to use their power to codify and protect reproductive rights. I don’t want their sympathy; I want their battle plans.

— Marianne Williamson (@marwilliamson) May 3, 2022

Shatner Does Sarah Palin

You have to watch this one.

I never knew that Sarah Palin has the heart of Ginsberg, Kerouac and Blake.

Via John Amato from Crooks and Liars:

SC: No Stripsearching Innocent 13-year-old Girls

Damn right.

From David Stout in the Times on the U.S. Supreme court opinion in Safford Unified School District v. Redding (No. 08-479):

In a ruling of interest to educators, parents and students across the country, the Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, on Thursday that the strip search of a 13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who were looking for prescription-strength drugs [acting on a tip] violated her constitutional rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, as expected, finding the strip search reasonable and lawful.

The Court found that the school district is liable as a whole but not individual school officials. Justices Ginsberg and Stevens dissented on this point of the ruling.

“At no point did he attempt to call her parent,” Justice Ginsburg wrote on Thursday. “Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity.” (NYT)

Actually what school officials deserve in this instance is a sharp hook to their collective jaw.

Voting Rights Appear Doomed; Our Country Remains Ours', If We Want It

Voting Rights Act of 1965: "To enforce the
fifteenth amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, and for other purposes."

Madison, Wisconsin — The United States Supreme Court demonstrated anew the institution is a naked political force intent on ending protections for Americans' foundational right to cast their vote.

The Roberts Court did well for itself this week in Brnovich v Democratic National Committee.

Voting rights, our voting rights, fared poorly, as the Court makes clear that legal claims that our rights are violated, per the Voting Right Act protections, will be met with great skepticism, even judicial hostility.

Rights? Liberties, you say, in federal court? Ha.

Chief Justice John Roberts is a veteran political operative.

No doubt this Summer he is all smiles after a milestone of his political campaign, eight years after five Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated critical sections of the Voting Right Act in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder in 2013, and other cases contriving the end of racism has arrived in America, Ricci v. DeStefano (07-1428 & 08-328).

Let's not forget how we arrived here.

Identity politics in all of its madness bequeathed to us this ridiculous Court, a legislative-executive branch creating law made-up by nine people, or in Brnovich, six.

After the Democratic National Committee rigged the 2016 Primary, Hillary Clinton won the nomination as the most unpopular nominee in recent history. You see, Democrats would rather virtue-signal than win.

That's three nominees to the high court delivered to a White House lunatic, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg who made the idiotic decision to stay on the Court, as liberals celebrated her "obstinacy as a sign of female empowerment," as noted by Shant Mesrobian.

The evisceration of the Voting Rights Act by our country's supreme branch of government towering over the other two branches, now forces field and policy work despised by the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party three main constituencies are corporate largess, law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

All three interests make exorbitant claims their interest alone should predominate over the American government.

Now, a branch of government, the judiciary, that declares itself supreme in its holdings nullifies even the ratification rights of the peons whose liberty interests lurks in the shadows of the powers that be.

Happy Independence Day 2021.

Proposed Fix to Voting Rights Act Is Worse than Court-gutted Corpse

James Sensenbrenner exposed as phony
on voting rights by James O'Keefe. See
three-minute, 19-second mark.

Update: Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison), a co-sponsor is hoping against hope that Speaker John Boehner will suddenly become amiable to amendments to take out the language of the Voting Rights Act Amendment that makes HR 3899 a steaming pile of very toxic and fetid waste. See this bizarre March 27, 2014 letter by House Democrats including Pocan that in part reads "some of us believe the bill should be enacted in its current form, and some of us prefer to see it amended" in an appeal to John Boehner. This is the same John Boehner who said during the 2012 campaign that he hopes Latinos and Blacks do not show up and vote. (Reeve, August 27, 2012; Yahoo News) at a Christian Science Monitor luncheon.
---
Five Republicans Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in a case that became instantly infamous: Shelby County v. Holder.

The five-four majority gutted sections four and five of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), destroying one method of the VRA's protecting people's right to vote against hostile state efforts to obstruct and deprive the vote.

As Justice Ginsberg writes in dissent: The majority decided the Voting Rights Act had worked so well the "conditions" (Roberts) of racism are a remnant of long-ago: "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

John Roberts has for years declared racism is over.

Sensenbrenner has been in negotiations with major civil rights groups and champions of civil rights for months, finally releasing his draft of the Voting Rights Act Amendment, Section Four formula, H. R. 3899 in January, cosponsored by Rep Conyers.

HR 3899 actually enshrines and protects voter obstruction laws such as Wisconsin and Texas' Photo Voter ID laws.

Thankfully, the official statement (January 2014) of the NAACP's Lorraine C. Miller, Interim President and CEO, pissed on HR 3899: "The NAACP appreciates that the U.S. Congress has made a bipartisan effort to update the Voting Rights Act, however we have serious concerns about the ability of some provisions in this bill to protect ALL voters from discrimination at the polls."

As the nation's oldest and largest grassroots civil rights organization we have the responsibility to ensure that any proposed legislation is in the best interest of our members, our community and our country. Participation in our democracy should be unfettered and all votes should be properly counted. From the exceptions for voter ID laws to decreased preclearance coverage to increased reliance on costly litigation, there are essential revisions and amendments to this bill that must take place to ensure ALL voters have fair and equitable access to the ballot box."

Sensenbrenner has called Wisconsin's Voter ID law, Act 23, "common sense," and decried the DoJ effort to challenge Texas under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Sensenbrenner's proposed law's new Section Four formula also protects states with its "five strikes" formula that would allow a state five different Court-determined acts of voting rights discrimination before placing the state under preclearance.

In so many words, Sensenbrenner—with the aid of Rep. Conyers and others who should know better (but apparently do not)—drafted a law that actually codifies voting right violations as fine under the Voting Rights Act as long as the a given state confines obstruction laws to four or less in a 15-year time span.

Sensenbrenner is a voting rights phony, a fake, and liberal writers from Ari Berman to Rick Hasan to Steve Benen have been aiding Sensenbrenner in this enterprise since Shelby last June.

In February in Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-White People) decided his fake support for voting rights perpetuated by a friendly media would take too much a toll on his racist buddies in the GOP.

Sensenbrenner was caught on camera saying, "I hope the president vetoes the bill. If the president vetoes—well, let me rephrase that – if the president vetoes this bill, he will lose an awful lot of the African-American support that he has." (Roth. TRMS) See O'Keefe's video below:

In Wisconsin, we don't call this guy Senselessbrenner for nothing.

And here we don't say: Don't trust Sensenbrenner on voting rights for nothing.

Sensenbrenner is exposed as an utter phony on voting rights (not that more evidence was needed), calculating and disingenuous on the video below (O'Keefe's reading of the Act though mostly factually incorrect is also on his own video) :

So, we cannot trust Sensenbrenner.

Sensenbrenner's Voting Rights Act Amendment legislation is worse than the status quo post-Shelby, aka now, so why are progressives in Congress, major civil rights organizations and progressive writers still behind the Voting Rights Act Amendments and still lauding Sensenbrenner?

For no good reason. Maybe they think they Obama can sign this obscene piece of legislation, call it what Sensenbrenner calls it, and declare victory to Black and Brown folks targeted by the GOP, hoping ethic minorities are as dumb as Sensenbrenner thinks they are.

Anyone advocating support for Sensenbrenner's Voting Rights Act Amendment legislation is taking a position that is untenable.

There is a real Voting Rights initiative: The Pocan-Ellison Right to Vote Amendment to the Constitution "to provide all Americans the affirmative right to vote and empower Congress to protect this right," which of course Sensenbrenner and his Party will not get behind.

What are Democrats and civil rights champions thinking?

They hope against hope that Republicans will change course and get behind voting rights legislation after years of obstructing the vote?

I have an inquiry into these matters into Rep. Mark Pocan's (D-Madison) office, and will include the response in an update.

Happy MLK Day, A Dream Deferred

Martin Luther King speaks in Memphis for labor
the day before his assassination in 1968

Happy Martin Luther King Jr Day, 2015

"The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem. ... This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, 'an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.'" [South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (Chief Justice Warren, 1966)] ....

There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions." (Chief Justice John Roberts, Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder et al (2013))

With these words Justice Roberts declared against that "conditions" caused by the the "insidious and pervasive evil," i.e.: racism, are no longer present.

What world do John Roberts and the Republicans Party live in?

Certainly not reality world.

The national party of de facto segregation today, openly hostile to civil rights and voting rights, maintains its war against ethnic minorities.

One hopes for a revival of the civil rights movement. (New York Times, MLK Day, 2015)

Wrote Justice Ginsberg in dissent in Shelby County, "In the Court’s view, the very success of §5 of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy. Congress was of another mind. Recognizing that large progress has been made, Congress determined, based on a voluminous record, that the scourge of discrimination was not yet extirpated. The question this case presents is who decides whether, as currently operative, §5 remains justifiable,¹ this Court, or a Congress charged with the obligation to enforce the post-Civil War Amendments “by appropriate legislation.” With overwhelming support in both Houses, Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, §5 should continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and second, continuance would guard against backsliding."

It's apt that the gutting of the Voting Rights Act should come in a case arising from rural Alabama.

The fight for equality live on. In King's words:

I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of ‘interposition’ and ‘nullification’ -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; ‘and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.’

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

Not free this day in 2015. The struggle continues. From April 3, 1968 in Memphis:

GOP Justices Gut Voting Rights Act in Partisan Decision

Have civil rights workers fought and died for nothing?

In an explosive, partisan decision today, the five Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have struck down the section [section four] of the Voting Rights Act setting formulae used to determine which state and local governments must comply with mandatory standards enforced by the U.S. Dept of Justice.

Four justices dissented in Shelby County v. Holder, et al [linked to full text of opinions], which challenges the 2006 Congressional reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Since 1965, the Dept of Justice has had to grant preclearance, prior approval, of state and local governments with a proven record of discrimination and voter obstruction.

This legislation protected the voting rights of millions of American citizens against discrimination and voter obstruction.

No more.

The decision in Shelby County v. Holder offers the opportunity of the U.S. Congress to enact new voting rights legislation.

This is of course a ludicrous status quo as the Republican Party-committed members of the Court know that the Republican Party has made voter obstruction a nationwide project with the objective to suppress the vote of minorities, the young, and other voters who refuse to vote Republican in elections.

No GOP Congress would ever allow civil rights legislation to be passed today.

The four justices in dissent paint an appalling picture of today's decision that elevates partisan politics over the sacred right of Congress to enforce the Constitutional Amendments which protect the liberties and rights of citizens against government oppression.

The five rightwing justices have demonstrated again that the U.S. Supreme Court is corrupt and dominated by a partisan five-to-four majority.

Writes Justice Ginsberg in dissent (p.32), with whom Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan join:

In the Court's view, the very success of [Section Five] of the Voting Rights Act demands its dormancy. Congress was of another mind. Recognizing that large progress has been made, Congress determined, based on a voluminous record, that the scourge of discrimination was not yet extirpated. The question this case presents is who decides whether, as currently operative, [Section Five] remains justifiable, this Court, or a Congress charged with the obligation to enforce the post-Civil War Amendments 'by appropriate legislation.'

Supreme Court Membership and Restoration of Habeas Corpus for Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Update II: Read Jon Wiener's Arguing About Gitmo in The Nation.

Update: The transcript of today’s consolidated argument in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. United States (06-1196) is available at U.S. Oral Arguments Transcripts.

-End of delayed C-Span 3 stream of oral arguments -

Facing hostile questioning from Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito, attorney Seth Waxman, seeking habeas corpus protections for Guantanamo Bay detainees ran into what appears as an authoritarian block representing the ideology of the George W. Bush administration.

Waxman is seeking for the accused access to the U.S. federal courts, via habeas corpus and other means, to challenge the detention and conditions of confinement of the accused.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the Bush administration, faced skeptical and aggressive questioning from Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer ("Habeas (writs) are supposed to be speedy"), and Ginsberg.

Clement seeks the Court to rule that the Bush administration may deny habeas corpus based on reasons of geographical jurisdiction, lack of POW status of detainees, and common and case law deference to the Executive branch in times of war.

Clement has also argued that the Congress and Executive branch have already spoken on the matter.

Justice Kennedy asked questions about the applicability of past decisions and the authority of a given U.S. Court of Appeals Court to declare the Military Commissions Act unconstitutional, and also raised the possibility of a lower federal court reviewing the issue.

Kennedy also asked Clement what appeared to be a skeptical question on the administrative procedures implementing the Military Commissions Act (MCA) in light of the detainees having now had no liberty for six years, and Clement's comment that: " ... the courts -- the lower courts should be instructed to with due cognizance for the fact these individuals have been detained six years and this is the process that has been provided in order to decide whether or not that continuing custody is lawful, they should expedite this to the greatest extent possible."

Asked Kennedy, "How can we fit your position when we have no jurisdiction here?", as the Congress and Executive branches have already spoken on the matter with the enactment of the MCA which bars federal courts from hearing detainee appeals, in what appears to be one very weak aspect of the Bush administration's case.

The capacity of the Congress and Executive branch to simply declare that the U.S. Court system may not rule on a legislative act flies in the face of centuries of American jurisprudence.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in keeping with his habits during oral arguments and what some observers see as a lack of legal curiosity, asked not a single question in this possible landmark case.

In rebuttal, Waxman said the traditional writ of habeas corpus does apply to situations of executive detention like what Bush has done at Guantanamo Bay, and that military tribunals are "inadequate".

Based on the ideologies in past decisions, here's a wild guess on how the Justices will rule:

John Paul Stevens (1975) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.

Antonin Scalia (1986) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.

Anthony M. Kennedy (1988) – ?

David H. Souter (1990) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.

Clarence Thomas (1991) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.

Stephen G. Breyer (1994) – Will vote to restore ancient and fundamental protection of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees, per the U.S. Constitution and international law.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts (2005) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (2006) – Will vote to uphold Bush administration military tribunals, with no habeas corpus protections.

Al Odah v. U.S. Amicus Briefs page

###

Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case — Sent Back to Lower Court for Further Proceedings

Updated: "[P]artisan  gerrymandering  injures  enough  indi­viduals and  organizations  in enough concrete ways to  ensure  that  standing  requirements,  properly  applied, will  not often or long  prevent  courts  from  reaching  the merits  of  cases  like  this  one.  Or from insisting, when they do, that partisan officials stop degrading the nation’s democracy."
—Justice Kagen, joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor, (p.2 of concurring opinion)
 ---
Wisconsin's Republican gerrymandering scheme is remanded back to lower court for further proceeding, the United States Supreme Court ruled today, (Howe, SCOTUSBlog).

The court sends the case back for further proceedings, "in the course of which those plaintiffs may attempt to demonstrate standing in accord with the analysis in this opinion," notes Amy Howe.

Decision is here.

Writes Howe:

The court explains that it would normally order the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, but this "is not the usual case. It concerns an unsettled kind of claim this Court has not agreed upon, the contours and justiciability of which are unreslved." So the court sends the case back to the district court to give the plaintiffs a chance to show that they themselves have suffered "concrete and particularized injuries."

by Amy Howe 9:21 AM

What happened is the swing-vote Kennedy is so weak and suspicious of liberty claims that the four liberal justices went along with remanding the case so plaintiffs, voters, can establish incontrovertible standing and harm inflicted by the Republican redistricting scheme in Wisconsin.

The concurring opinion by Kagen, joined by the three liberal justices, makes clear Kennedy as well is looking for a precedent-setting opinion that applies nationwide, not statewide in Wisconsin.

Writes Kagen, (p.2 of concurring opinion):

Partisan gerrymandering, as this Court has recognized, is  'incompatible  with  democratic  principles.'   Arizona State   Legislature v.   Arizona   Independent   Redistricting  Comm’n,  576  U.  S.  ___,  ___  (2015)  (slip  op.,  at  1)  (quoting  Vieth v.  Jubelirer,  541  U.  S.  267,  292  (2004)  (plurality  opinion); alterations omitted).
More effectively every day, that practice enables politicians to entrench themselves in power  against  the  people’s  will.  And  only  the  courts  can do anything to remedy the problem, because gerrymanders benefit those who control the political  branches.  None  of  those  facts  gives  judges  any  excuse  to  disregard  Article III’s (United States Constitution and standing to litigate) demands. The Court is right to say they were not met here. But partisan  gerrymandering  injures  enough  indi­viduals and  organizations  in enough concrete ways to  ensure  that  standing  requirements,  properly  applied, will  not often or long  prevent  courts  from  reaching  the merits  of  cases  like  this  one.  Or  from  insisting,  when they do, that partisan officials stop degrading the nation’s democracy.  

Liberty-loving voters just have to wait another year, and hope Kennedy does not retire.

McCain 2008 Campaign Manager and Strategist Renounces Republican Party, Resigns Membership

The systemic sacrifice of children has begun
as calls for feeding the young to MAGA are
heeded. The Flight of Moloch - by
William Blake
America über alles

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell singled out as indecent

Steve Schmidt, Republican Party strategist and an architect of two presidential campaigns, has publicly renounced the Republican Party, vowing to align with the Democratic Party to fight against the "the party of Trump."

Schmidt made his comments on social media Wednesday morning as the number of children taken from parents by the U.S. government has now exceeded 11,000.

Steve Schmidt said the Republican Party has become "corrupt, indecent, and immoral" and "filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party’s greatest leaders."

Singling out House Speaker Paul Ryan (R) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), Schmidt said former Republican Party standard bearer, President Ronald Reagan, would be "ashamed of McConnell and Ryan and all the rest ... ."

29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life. Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.

— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) June 20, 2018

It is corrupt, indecent and immoral. With the exception of a few Governors like Baker, Hogan and Kasich it is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party’s greatest leaders. This child separation policy is connected to the worst abuses of

— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) June 20, 2018

Humanity in our history. It is connected by the same evil that separated families during slavery and dislocated tribes and broke up Native American families. It is immoral and must be repudiated. Our country is in trouble. Our politics are badly broken. The first step to a

— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) June 20, 2018

Season of renewal in our land is the absolute and utter repudiation of Trump and his vile enablers in the 2018 election by electing Democratic majorities. I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda. I say it as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency.

— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) June 20, 2018

On Ronald Reagan’s grave are these words. “ I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” He would be ashamed of McConnell and Ryan and all the rest while this corrupt government

— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) June 20, 2018

Meanwhile, intellectuals and writers continue to sound the alarm the United States is entering a period of domestic fascism and state violence formerly reserved for its black citizens and Native Americans.

"All mass crimes in history start with a justification, a necessity rationalization, a sick form of nationalism and racism," notes The Intercept.

Last night as the AP broke the story the Trump administration had erected special internment camps for infants and toddlers, Rachel Maddow broke into tears at the end of her news show as she handed over MSNBC coverage to the Lawrence O'Donnell Show.

MSNBC and NBC News have stationed dozens of reporters and producers in the American south as each day newscasts seem more like a bearing of witness as the U.S. government attempts to hide locations and operations of secret holding facilities housing the children taken from parents.

The Trump administration signals that its child-snatching regime is a complex that is built to last.

The number of children stolen from their parents by the United States government now exceeds 11,000.

Just heard from @HHSGov again:

Of the 11,786 minors currently in the unaccompanied alien children program, 3,280 are female and 8,506 are male.

We still don’t have photos of or acces to any girls or toddlers.

— Jacob Soboroff (@jacobsoboroff) June 19, 2018

No need for Rachel Maddow to apologize as most of America is right behind her.
---
Sacrificing our children as Moloch calls.

By Allen Ginsberg (1926-1997)

Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars!
Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies!
Old men weeping in the parks!
Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch!
Moloch the loveless!
Mental Moloch!
Moloch the heavy judger of men!
Moloch the incomprehensible prison!
Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows!
---

When Moloch calls for the sacrifice of children, religious mania is ever-present in America's DNA. Those without character round up children in a ritual sacrifice requiring the ascent of 1,000s. No member of ICE has dissented and spoken out.
---
"The religion of Moloch — as such creeds may be generically called — is in essence the cringing submission of the slave, who dare not, even in his heart, allow the thought that his master deserves no adulation. Since the independence of ideals is not yet acknowledged, Power may be freely worshipped, and receive an unlimited respect, despite its wanton infliction of pain."
— Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship (1903)

Democratic Party Vows to Protect Right to Vote Against GOP Obstruction

Jimmy Lee Jackson was beaten, shot
and killed by racist police while shielding his
mother and father in 1965 during the
historic voting rights movement

Objective commentators note the Republican Party's grand appeal to racism in the 2012 election signaled a crossroads for the White Party.

Conventional political wisdom had it that ginning up white working class resentment against anybody black or brown ["dark ones"] could be attempted just one more time before changing American demographics of skin color forced a change in racist appeals and the Republican voter obstruction project launched jointly by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the GOP.

In 2013 Republicans made a few squeaks about being inclusive, and then proceeded to double-down on obstructing voters across the country.

This is the route the Republican Party has now chosen, and its course is set.

There are no more junctions, crossroads or turning back on this road of voter obstruction.

The lives of the struggle, the beaten, maimed and the murdered have been gist for mocking in GOP circles for decades now, with open GOP admiration for fascism and racism. It shouldn't be a surprise the GOP would engage in voter obstruction but it is anyway to many.

The contemptible history of mass murder and terrorism against civil rights workers echoes like a psychic anxiety spasm that the Scott Walkers and Rand Pauls will never understand because they and their Party are the perpetrators of voter obstruction and racist appeals today; besides bringing up civil rights murders just is not an effective PR message.

The golden age of NYT journalism covered the
terror campaign waged against the
civil rights movement of the 1960s

The new brand of the Republican Party are not history students anyway; they're after power and everyone in the GOP has their hands out to the Koch brothers and right-wing money, with no dissent tolerated even as the GOP takes the road to political nullification of the population way beyond blocking access to the ballot.

The Democratic Party is accelerating efforts to highlight the difference between the GOP that wants to obstruct and nullify voters and the Democratic Party working to empower and include.

Witness multi-generational voting rights markers laid by Steve and Cokie Roberts; Attorney General Eric Holder's repeated public statements affirming the right to vote; and President Obama's assurance to civil rights workers that the "federal government would vigorously enforce voting rights in the country despite a Supreme Court [five-to-four] ruling against a core section of a landmark 1965 [Voting Rights] law." (Calmes. NYT)

Republicans did not count on or perhaps did not care about the fact that black and brown folks would not appreciate losing the hard-won right to vote, especially in the wake of the GOP gutting of the Voting Rights Act after the reelection of the first black U.S. president.

Racist murders altered an American
president and the country forever

The Democratic Party is taking the high road of democracy as America simultaneously presents a historically diverse population against the greatest concentration of wealth this experiment in democracy has ever seen.

Amid this battle of democracy against vast wealth, the echoes of those murdered martyrs of the civil rights family live on, and so does the pain.

For Republicans, avoiding this history and denying contemporary voter obstruction, in the words of voting rights poseur Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), is just "common sense."

He's wrong. Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) is right.

Below is the statement of John Lewis on June 25, 2013, the day the U.S. Supreme Court did the unthinkable in striking down the Voting Rights Act:
---
"Today, the Supreme Court stuck a dagger into the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most effective pieces of legislation Congress has passed in the last 50 years.

These men never stood in unmovable lines.  They were never denied the right to participate in the democratic process.  They were never beaten, jailed, run off their farms or fired from their jobs. No one they knew died simply trying to register to vote.  They are not the victims of gerrymandering or contemporary unjust schemes to maneuver them out of their constitutional rights.

I remember in the 1960s when people of color were the majority in the small town of Tuskegee, Alabama.  To insure that a black person would not be elected, the state gerrymandered Tuskegee Institute and the black sections of town so they fell outside the city limits.  This reminds me too much of a case  that occurred in Randolph County in my own state of Georgia, when the first black man was elected to the board of education in 2002.  The county legislature changed his district so he would not be re-elected.

I disagree with the court that the history of discrimination is somehow irrelevant today.  The record clearly demonstrates numerous attempts to impede voting rights still exist, and it does not matter that those attempts are not as “pervasive, widespread or rampant” as they were in 1965.  One instance of discrimination is too much in a democracy.

As Justice Ginsberg mentioned, it took a Bloody Sunday for Congress to finally decide to fix on-going, institutionalized discrimination that occurred for 100 years after the rights of freed slaves were nullified at the end of the Civil War.  I am deeply concerned that Congress will not have the will to fix what the Supreme Court has broken.   I call upon the members of this body to do what is right to insure free and fair access to the ballot box in this country."