Wiston Papers
Is justice blind or is it the people who are watching?
Justice
often is symbolized by a woman grasping a sword in one hand, holding a
balanced scale in the other--her eyes obscured by a blindfold. This
image of Lady Justice represents the lofty aspiration of judicial
impartiality critical to good governance and protection of fundamental
democratic rights.
Good law, supporters claim, comes from justices who are politically independent and rule without “influence from daily life.” Critics of recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, on the other hand, argue that justice is blind not impartial.
Justice may at times seem blind, but many observers most certainly are.
The
reaction to the high court rulings this week on the Voting Rights Act
clearly illustrates this. And today’s decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in New York and same-sex marriage in California have
evoked equally emotional responses from supporters and opponents.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
In
Shelby County vs Holder, the high court noted correctly that America
has changed dramatically in the nearly 50 years since passage of the
Voting Rights Act that struck down the “insidious and pervasive evil” of
racial discrimination that prevented African-Americans from casting
ballots. The law was necessary then, but SCOTUS this week ruled it no
longer is.
The
original statute applied to all states, but certain regions of America
were targeted for extra scrutiny. These “covered jurisdictions” had
imposed special requirements for elections that effectively reduced
voter turnout in the 1960s and 70s.
Congress
has routinely renewed the Voting Rights Act since passage--most
recently in 2006 for another 25 years. But each extension lacked
modifications either to these original covered jurisdictions or the
formulas local authorities had adopted to address discrimination.
SCOTUS noted there now is high voter registration and turnout in these
regions. And to retain special scrutiny of these original jurisdictions
is--in itself--a form of reverse discrimination against districts where
such regress no longer is needed. Those who expressed outrage at
Monday’s ruling obviously either didn’t read that part of the ruling or
chose to ignore it.
The 5-4 decision was the right one.
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
In
two separate decisions SCOTUS gave some comfort to same-sex couples and
supporters However, the scope of the rulings is not as broad as
portrayed in first news reports.
The
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 defined marriage as the union of
a man and woman. The law immediately affected millions of same-sex
couples who became de facto second-class citizens subject to unequal federal income tax payments as well as Social Security and Medicare benefits.
The
Constitution expressly allows each state to define marriage. But DOMA,
the court says, violates both the rights of same-sex couples as well
as the states where such marriage is legal by imposing obligations on
gay couples that do not apply to everyone.
In
United States vs. Windsor, a female married couple was living in New
York State. When one woman died, the IRS denied the federal estate
income tax exemption for the surviving spouse. SCOTUS ruled that the
IRS action put New York State and federal laws at odds.
Initial
news reports did not make clear the distinction between state vs
federal rights when the Supreme Court declared DOMA unconstitutional.
The 5-4 decision was the right one.
The
California case of Hollingsworth vs. Perry turned on the question of
who has standing in deciding legality of same-sex marriage. It did not
speak to marriage itself.
After
the State Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional opposite-sex marriage as the only legal union,
opponents successfully campaigned for and passed Proposition 8 that says
marriage is between a man and woman. But California state officials
refused to enforce Proposition 8 and the issue eventually worked its way
to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Today’s
ruling stated that proponents of Proposition 8 lacked legal standing.
That is, supporters of the opposite-sex proposition failed to
demonstrate that they themselves will suffer “personal and tangible
harm” if the measure is rejected. The 5-4 decision was the right one
based on the narrowly prescribed point of law.
Don’t be misled my headlines that shout:
Despite
such headlines the Supreme Court did not rule on same-sex marriage.
That was never the issue either in New York or California. SCOTUS has
been resolute in upholding the right of each state to decide issues of
marriage within its borders.
Did some observers including the media not
understand that or did they choose to ignore the truth?
Contrary to reports on the Voting Right Act, the high court correctly
observed that the law itself now is discriminatory as applied.
Did some
observers including the media not understand that or did they choose to
ignore the truth?
I
read every Supreme Court decision. Yes, it took time. But it was
necessary to get an accurate account of what our nine justices said on
each of these important cases.
As
a journalist, I’m skeptical of initial reports on breaking news. I
reserve judgment until I’ve verified the information myself.
Steve Coon
June 26, 2013
