Protection Lost

Spectator

The federal courts have always been the last line of defense for our basic rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution. If state legislatures, Congress, or the president crossed into forbidden territory, we could count on federal appellate courts to rein them back in thereby protecting our rights.

It is no longer clear that protection exists.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects individuals from being discriminated against when voting. The days of disenfranchising entire groups of voters by implementing poll taxes or other impediments were supposed to be over. And when they reared their ugly heads again, individuals could go to court, protected by Section 2 as had been the case for decades.

But now, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, contrary to the history and tradition of how the Voting Rights Act has been interpreted, that individuals cannot sue based on discriminatory voting rules—only the government can sue. If the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agrees, voters will have lost an important, some might say critical, tool in guaranteeing their right to vote.

Redistricting, always contentious given its importance, was traditionally and logically
undertaken after the constitutionally mandated decennial census. Since congressional and legislative representation is based on population, that census was always pretty important.

But SCOTUS says state legislatures don’t have to wait and can redistrict whenever they damn well please and can do so however nakedly politically they choose so long as they don’t racially discriminate. So Texas and Florida now want to redistrict to create more Republican districts and California, New York, and Illinois consider doing the same to create more Democratic districts. It couldn’t be more cynical.

Women used to have a certain amount of autonomy over their own bodies. That power increased in 1973 when SCOTUS decided Roe v. Wade. But that lasted just over half a century until Roe was tossed by the current court in a 5-4 vote. At least one aspect of women’s health, and their bodies, is now controlled by state legislatures, and about 67 percent of those legislators are men.

You, like most of us, were probably taught that in this country no person is above the law because we don’t have royalty and our laws apply to everyone. Except they don’t. SCOTUS has decided our president has complete immunity from arrest, prosecution, and civil actions while in office conducting “official” acts. Mind you there is nothing in the constitution or federal statute that says any such thing; SCOTUS conjured it up because prosecutions or lawsuits against a sitting president would be too “burdensome.”

That burden apparently doesn’t work the other way since President Trump has filed numerous lawsuits against individuals, organizations, and corporations while in office. (More than 350 lawsuits have been filed against the actions of the Trump Administration, though not against Trump personally. According to the NYU School of Law, nearly 93 percent of those cases were successful.)

So, basically, the president can now sue anyone but be sued by no one, and he can direct the prosecution of anyone, as he did telling Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute some of his political enemies, but be prosecuted by no one. Seems like he is way above the law.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution starts with, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...” That would seem to be pretty straightforward, as it goes on to say authorities cannot violate those restrictions without probable cause. That used to mean police couldn’t harass or arrest people based on the color of their skin.

But now they can. SCOTUS says, sure, ICE and the other immigration folks can stop people based primarily on their brown skin and the fact that English is not their first language. That sort of naked racial discrimination is “essential” to their job, according to SCOTUS. So, the Fourth Amendment mostly applies to white, English speakers.

Not to be outdone, President Trump wants to take a whack at the First Amendment by having both individuals and groups who criticize him investigated, prosecuted, and shut down. His congressional sycophants seem willing to go along, and his Federal Communications Commission chair has threatened networks with license revocation for saying much of anything Trump doesn’t like, though he has no power to do any such thing. (The FCC licenses individual stations, not networks, and while they can pull a station’s license, it is a long and complicated process with some high bars to clear.)

We expect unconstitutional nonsense from politicians. But our Bill of Rights is being slowly but surely weakened by the very courts on which we rely to protect its strengths. If the courts won’t protect our rights, we will have none.

View On Our Website