5 Controversial Cases Where Supreme Court Is Poised to Roll Back Civil Rights

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/5-controversial-cases-where-supreme-court-poised-roll-back-civil-rights



***SNIP

1. Rolling back affirmative action. The first big civil rights case concerns affirmative action in higher education. The case, coming six decades after an entirely different Court ordered the integration of public schools in Brown v. Board of Education, revolves around a young white woman who did not get into the University of Texas at Austin. A decade ago, the Court held that there was a compelling interest in considering race in university admissions, but today’s Court is perceived by civil rights groups as being openly hostile to affirmative action in academia. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have been called out by scholars for their hypocrisy on affirmative action; however, that’s not likely to stop them from rolling back civil rights.

2. Upholding some gay rights but not others. There are two big same-sex marrage cases on the docket, and it appears that the Court will uphold some rights for same-sex couples, but also slow down the legal clock for marriage equality. The first case concerns the federal Defense of Marriage Act, where a majority of justices seem ready to strike down a section of the federal law that denies government benefits to same sex couples—because it does not treat people equally under the law. However, the Court also heard a case involving a California ballot measure that banned gay marriage but was overturned by a lower court. There, the justices seemed inclined to make as narrow a ruling as possible, meaning there would be no federal right to marriage equality. Same-sex marriage would then be subjected to state-by-state fights for years, until another case came before the Court. That’s a big right-wing victory.

3. Undermining minority voting rights. Waving the states’ rights flag is an old ploy for reactionaries who want to restrict voting rights. The way it's playing out today is in Republican claims that the federal govermment no longer needs to act to prevent race-based discrimination in voting. Republicans in Texas, which has one of the worst recent records on voting rights, have sued to overturn the sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that give the Justice Department power to block changes in state election practices. During the Court’s hearing, Scalia was visibly hostile to the VRA, calling it a “ race-based entitlement.” The GOP’s numerous nasty race-based tactics in the 2012 election were ignored, suggesting that the Court will gut one of America's most important civil rights laws.

4. Human genes will become private property. The case before the Court concerns a biotech company, Myriad Genetics, that has two patents on the human genetic code that determines if a woman is likely to develop breast cancer or ovarian cancer. The firm is the only one that tests women for these two diseases, because of the patents, and also controls related research on these genes. That stops women from getting second medical opinions and scientists from developing less expensive tests. The justices had reservations about Myriad’s monopoly, but also seemed inclined to find a compromise preserving biotech patents. (There are now 40,000 patents on human genetic material.) Earlier this year, the Court validated Monsanto's patent rights to modify genes in seeds. It’s likely its pro-corporate majority will find a way to keep privatizing advances that hold the key to the health of tens of millions of people.

[Demeter]

1. Come the Revolution

we will have to redesign Justice from top to bottom in this country. Because there is no universal justice anymore...not that there ever was, but the thumb on the scales has become a blatant joke.

[SoCalDem]

2. We need a whole new court set up

A country as big as we are, and as politicized, HAS to make changes.

My plan:

Make it a 21 member body.

9 would still rule, but the 9 would be randomly chosen for any given case

This would put a stop to "pet" cases being taken on

To accept a case , 14 would have to agree (2/3)

Make the appointments term-limited (15 years) since politics is inherent now.
They could be renominated, but the upper age limit would still apply.

Make minimum age 55, and maximum 75...
...By age 55, most will have already raised a family to adulthood, would.should have an easily researchable work history/body of work behind them,and by having an upper age limit, it helps to keep the court somewhat current.

[Demeter]

3. Reasonable suggestions

I'd like a way to keep politics out. A vow of non-political behavior, modeled on a priest's vows of poverty, chastity and obedience....

No gifts, no speeches, no conferences, no money changing hands of any kind, no membership in anything, no investments except Treasury bills, etc. so that if any stricture is violated, we can throw the bastards out.

[SoCalDem]

5. and no pension

I agree that they should not be "in business", making speeches, writing books, making proclamations to students, etc. Or even being interviewed on tv/radio.

With a 15 yr term, they would have time to do that afterward...when they are no longer in a position to decide cases.

[Demeter]

7. Live off social security? And Medicare?

Yeah, that might be a good incentive to think favorably on the 99%

I'd like to add a lifetime ban on employment after retirement from the court, too. No cushy golden parachute.

[Pelican]

12. Good plan...

I'm sure you would get the best and brightest from the legal community...

[Demeter]

13. Give me the honest, community-minded judge who doesn't need to be paid to do good

and you can KEEP your "best and brightest" in their gated communities on caviar and gilded pheasant.

[HiPointDem]

18. fuck the so-called 'best & brightest'.

[dsc]

10. that would be no better

a delayed payoff is still a payoff.

[rhett o rick]

11. That sounds wonderful. Now how the hell you going to get that done? nm

[Demeter]

14. It's going to take a Constitutional Convention--or a Revolution

And the revolution could be peaceable, or not.

This blatant fascism we are suffering more each day is making peaceable revolution impossible.

[rhett o rick]

16. I wish I could disagree.

But both will be disastrous. We are not strong enough to force a CC and if we could we wouldnt have the resources to buy the participants. The Ruling Elite would love a violent revolution. It would give them an excuse to implement the Continuity of Government or literal fascism.

[LostOne4Ever]

4. Im remaining hopeful on the Prop 8 case

Kennedy does have some Libertarian leanings; and from what I understand of Roberts, he is very interested in how history will view his court.

I expect them to kick the can down the road, but I am remaining hopeful that they will legalize marriage equality on that one.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Obama and his DU ardents advocate States to decide marriage, with no real equality ever posssible

'it should be up to the States, unlike marijuana laws, which should never be up to the States...Eric has a list of which things MUST be left up to the States and other things which MUST NOT be left up to the States'

[William769]

8. #2 really has me worried.

The closer we get to the decision date, it seems the more ill I become.

[xchrom]

9. it does make one queazy. nt

[MNBrewer]

20. Anything could happen, except for invalidating ALL same-sex marriages, I guess.

[sorefeet]

15. Number 4 says stops scientist from

developing less expensive test?? I seen on the news where 15 year old boy has developed a test for pancreatic cancer that is 26,000 times less expensive than the one we have today. His test is 3 cents per test compared to $800.00 a test. His test is 400% more accurate for pancreatic cancer which is wrong 30% of the time. Another child has invented a charger for cell phones that work in seconds rather than an hour. So does big business know this stuff already with their fancy labs and years of documented knowledge? Are we being scammed at every fucking turn in the road?? How about the kid on Oprah who got out of medical school and found out he had terminal brain cancer. He got a job in a lab and concocted his own treatment drug and is still kicking and being a doctor. Our votes mean nothing.

[eallen]

17. No, but it does keep them from marketing it until the patent expires.

Patents purposely don't prevent research using what is patented, but only from selling it. So if Ed & Son has patented some kind of LED light, someone else can improve on that invention and use it freely in their research, up until the time they go to sell it.

For what it is worth, there's no reason for the genotyping of those BRCA mutations to cost so much, except that Myriad is trying to reap as much as possible on that patent, as long as possible.

[woo me with science]

19. K&R