Skip to main content

In a move that Supreme Court analysts are calling the "death knell" for key enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, and civil rights activists are calling "devastating," the Supreme Court voted along partisan lines 5-4 to end half a century of civil rights enforcement law allowing the federal government to actively protect minority voters from discrimination at the polls.  It is just the latest in a pattern of arbitrary, lawless, and partisan rulings beginning in 2000 to interfere in the electoral process on behalf of the Republican Party, but this case marks a radical escalation in the brazenness of such rulings that has sparked an unprecedented Constitutional crisis.  

For the first time ever, a Constitutional Crisis has been incited by wanton abuse of power on the Supreme Court, rather than in or between the Executive and Legislative Branches.  The five conservative Justices that make up the majority - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy - have usurped legislative powers granted under the Constitution following the Civil War in order to clear the way for discriminatory state-level policies that will blunt the impact of minority voter turnout in 2014 that was decisive in 2012.  Moreover, the transparency of the excuses used in the decision for doing so, and the fact that they contradict the rationale used in Bush v. Gore to nullify an earlier election, have only further highlighted that the Court is reaching predetermined conclusions in order to maximally advantage one political party at the expense of the legal foundations of our republic.

Although these abuses of power to interfere in elections have occurred in stark terms at least twice before - in 2000 and in the 2010 Citizens United decision striking down limits on campaign finance and declaring it legal to buy elections (thus greatly contributing to the 2010 Republican Congressional sweep) - the current action is the most nakedly criminal yet, directly attacking long-standing law and the basic political rights of millions of Americans in order to predetermine the outcome of the upcoming midterm election.  Just as Barack Obama's massive financial advantages in 2008 due to small donors led directly and inexorably to the same five Justices ruling in Citizens United in 2010 to eradicate campaign finance laws limiting the power of large donors, so the decisive turnout of minority voters in 2012 has led directly and inexorably to this decision in preparation for 2014.    

In the previous abuse of power, despite its also being brazen and arbitrary, we listened to the lullaby voices who said "Do nothing," "Pass legislation," "Pass a Constitutional Amendment" - basically do anything other than address the rogue partisan Court eviscerating the Constitution and nullifying elections before they even happen.  What has come of that?  We still have no campaign finance reform legislation nullifying Citizens United, we still have no Constitutional Amendment overcoming it, and we still have a lawless, arbitrary, and hyperpartisan Court ruling that up is down to ensure Republican electoral advantages.  So it's through that lens that the same advice must be dismissed.  There will be no legislative fix to this ruling anymore than we could get the common sense gun control legislation supported by 90% of Americans passed, nor will there be any Amendment.  So, are we going to simply do nothing and go back to sleep again?  

I will not be party to that stupid game any longer.  I will not sing the song of "I wish I had at least tried to do something" any longer.  I have no intention of passively waiting for the next time these people nullify a presidential election, or rule that bribery is free speech, or that the right of states to stop minorities from voting trumps the right of the citizenry to vote against Republicans, or that Up is Down whenever Republicans want it to be but never when they don't.  I have no intention of accepting as legitimate totally arbitrary and flagrantly corrupt decisions handed down by a hyperpartisan judicial dictatorship that refuses to even be bound by the logic of its own decisions, and simply rules whatever is most convenient for the electoral strategies of the GOP.

As such, I have started a petition on calling on the President and Congress to condemn the ruling in the strongest possible terms as the lawless, arbitrary, partisan abuse of power and naked attempt to determine the next election that it is, and to also call for inquiries into the impeachment of the Justices responsible.  This simply cannot be tolerated anymore, if there is to be any semblance of rule of law in this country.  The Judiciary, more than any other branch of government, cannot be allowed to be corrupted like this, and especially not its highest court.  Every law passed by the people's elected representatives is subject to their veto or approval, and they have proven this extends even into the electoral decisions of the citizenry.

Because of the unique power of the Court, and the profound ability of a corrupted one to distort and damage the normal functioning of government, every single political problem this nation has faced since 2000 has stemmed from this majority (albeit with two of its members replaced under Bush).  These so-called "Justices" only have a majority today because three of them dictated the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, and two of the current five-member majority are only on the Court because of that decision.  Moreover, while Republicans may or may not have retaken the House of Representatives in 2010 without the 5-4 Citizens United decision, it's beyond question that their margins would be nowhere near what they were, and the Democratic victory in 2012 would be far beyond what it was.  It is because of the Dread Pirate Roberts Court's abuses of power in that and other cases (e.g., gerrymandering) that the GOP still controls the House despite receiving fewer votes than their opponents in 2012.

We know what doing nothing gets us, and continuing to do things that don't work in the expectation of better results is the definition of madness.  So I'm not interested in being told it can't be done, that it's too hard, that wah-wah-wah we're so helpless.  The fact is if all we achieve is to get a significant number of people in Congress to publicly reject the ruling as an illegitimate abuse of power and condemn the Dread Pirate Roberts Court as the lawless partisan Star Chamber it is, that would at least be an improvement over the supine bubble of denial that has existed around abuses of power on the Court.  It would at least put the discussion in a sane and relevant context, on the abuse of power on the Court rather than acting like this is merely just another "disappointing" ruling we "disagree" with.  

Whereas acting as if the ruling were legitimate and just trying to pursue legislation would at best result in preserving most of the partisan advantages created by the ruling, and at worst, if no legislation were passed, would be the worst possible outcome because nothing would have been accomplished - neither substantive nor symbolic.  It would just be history repeating itself, and that can no longer be tolerated.  We've seen this game play out, and we're not going to play it anymore.  

We have a chance to respond to an assault on our republic as we should, while it's happening, and not just add another notch to our list of regrets.  This Court majority has miscalculated badly, and declared war on civil rights in America just for the sake of improving the GOP's electoral odds in 2014.  We must act strongly and swiftly to educate them about their error.  Here is the text of the petition:

Whereas the relevant provisions of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) have been key to secure the right of millions of Americans to have a voice in their government for generations, and countless Americans have fought, suffered, and even died to secure those rights...

Whereas those provisions of VRA have been crucial to protecting the rights of minority voters in recent years as partisan attempts to illegally suppress minority voting have intensified...

Whereas the equal right to vote is fundamental to the liberty and security of a free republic...

Whereas the current Supreme Court majority have shown a pattern and practice of issuing lawless rulings designed to radically change the laws of this nation in order to increase the electoral performance of the Republican Party...

And whereas the aforementioned ruling striking down key parts of the VRA is a nakedly partisan, lawless, and inexcusable attempt to assist Republican election efforts in 2014 by eliminating key mechanisms against minority vote suppression tactics...

It is necessary for the defense of the rule of the law, the legitimacy of the Courts, and the rights of all Americans that the President and the Congress condemn the ruling in the strongest possible terms, reject it as invalid and lawless, and immediately call for inquiries into passing articles of impeachment against Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy for abuse of power.

As of my posting this, there are 34 signatories.  If you support this effort, sharing the petition on social media would be helpful, as I myself don't participate in things like Facebook or Twitter and thus have no networks established on them.

I shouldn't have to say this, but I guess I do: If you disagree with the basic premises of this diary and think we should do nothing or accept the ruling as part of a normal and perfectly legitimate process of law, please don't bother responding.  We've been following that plan since 2000 and have gotten nowhere because of it.  In fact, these people have concocted fresh outrages every single time we dare to win an election against the Party that controls them, and there have been no consequences.  Enough is enough.  We will not quietly sit around waiting for the next abuse of power from these crooks.  We demand a Supreme Court that bases its rulings on US law, not on the electoral strategies of the Republican Party.

7:13 AM PT: Can someone other than me please volunteer to explain this to the people who still don't get it, and think this heinous, partisan, criminal assault on the Constitution is a totally legitimate and ordinary exercise of judicial authority?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

    by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:27:51 AM PDT

  •  And best of all, we can sign your petition (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, SpecialKinFlag

    because we don't live in a Police State, yay!

    And although the idea of being concerned about "constitutional crisis" coming from you seems a tad odd -  instead of being puzzled I will just sit back and enjoy the irony.

    •  Will you sign it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ord avg guy

      Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

      by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:46:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The conundrum is that you recently spent a whole (0+ / 0-)

        lot of effort trying to convince me (all of us, I suppose) that constitutional rights are not important, meaningless in fact.

        So, maybe when I get out of that rut, I will.

        •  So your comment was just threadjacking. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ord avg guy, Larsstephens

          Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

          by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:03:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, probably not that so much as trying (0+ / 0-)

            to figure out where you're coming from wrt constitutional issues - you know, what part(s) can (or should, must) be ignored, which part(s) we should get riled up about if violated, and that type of thing.

            Which seems relevant as far as a big issue for you is the "moral authority" of a messenger to put forth a message.

            Or were you just kidding about all that?  I have a difficult time judging motives over the internet . .. .

            Anyways, about this petition, whether it is necessary or not will become much more apparent the next time there is an election.  I will see if I see any minorities voting or not.  If I do, this court ruling will probably not be that big of a deal.

            •  You've made abundantly clear your only point (0+ / 0-)

              in commenting here was to swoop in, drop a bunch of slanderous turd remarks, and contribute nothing to the issue.

              Anyways, about this petition, whether it is necessary or not will become much more apparent the next time there is an election.  I will see if I see any minorities voting or not.  If I do, this court ruling will probably not be that big of a deal.
              Voter suppression isn't about the total eradication of minority voting - it's about reducing the numbers to give Republicans an advantage.  And if your advice is "do nothing," you know my opinion on that.

              Sign the petition to demand a law-abiding Supreme Court.

              by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:33:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Petition signed n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

    by ord avg guy on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:52:28 AM PDT

  •  I don't understand the constitutional crisis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheMomCat, Robobagpiper, erush1345

    The SCOTUS ruled on a case properly brought before it and a majority ruled a certain way.

    Where is this "abuse of power" again?  I don't understand your argument.  Kennedy should be impeached for ..... deciding a case?  What's that prosecution going to look like?  Whats the charge there...Deliberation with Intent to Harm?  Negligent Jurisprudence?  

    By definition, a constitutional crisis is an event whereby the founding document can not resolve an issue or argument to an extent which calls into question the sovereignty of the governmental branches or agencies in part or in whole.

    One of the requirements we have for emerging democracies to be considered a free society is an Independent Judiciary free from threat, intimidation or retribution from the other agencies of government (particularly the ones in charge of the military and law enforcement).

    The only constitutional crisis I see here is what you are suggesting whereby one or both of the other branches take direct retributive action against the Judiciary to make sure they get the decisions they WANT and to send a message to future courts to never decide against the will of the Executive and/or Legislature. don't think this Congress will pass a law to re-establish the tenants of the VRA under the Judicially upheld Section 5 provision.  ...okay, I actually agree with you on that...  ...but you think this same Congress then would be willing to pass a formal vote of impeachment in the House and resolve a guilty verdict in the Senate?

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:06:22 AM PDT

    •  I reiterate from the diary: (0+ / 0-)
      I shouldn't have to say this, but I guess I do: If you disagree with the basic premises of this diary and think we should do nothing or accept the ruling as part of a normal and perfectly legitimate process of law, please don't bother responding.
      I'm not here to persuade anyone of what is plainly evident.  This is an action diary.

      Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

      by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:10:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Im not saying there is not action to be taken (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345, Murphoney

        but I do not understand what you are basing this on.

        This seems like a silly response to a very real issue.

        If you can't even be bothered to articulate your proposed solution I will assume you are not serious then and merely sought to vent your frustration at this ruling.  ....which I can certainly understand.

        um...good luck then I guess.  You are up to 36 signatures already, though I am not sure how many are needed.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:15:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, good luck with whatever form of action (0+ / 0-)

          you think would be more suitable.  This is an attempt to address the root of the problem, as I described it in detail.  If that's not enough, then I can't help you - I don't have the patience.

          Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

          by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:22:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But maybe one of the others who agrees with me (0+ / 0-)

          and isn't as irritable as I am can break it down for you further than I do in the diary.  

          Assumptions begin with ass and end with shit.

          by Troubadour on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:27:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Petitions like this have a positive (0+ / 0-)

          impact on the world. They don't accomplish their stated objective (of course) but for frustrated partisans the ability to "do something" by signing a petition gives them a modicum of happiness, if only for a moment. And it hurts no one. Few things in this world can say that they make some people happy and yet nobody gets the short end of the stick. It's a free lunch. If people are signing petitions instead of doing something productive, that is a problem. But that one objection aside, the signing of useless petitions, ceteris paribus, is only a good thing (psychologically).

      •  You can say in a diary (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Murphoney, Wisper, erush1345

        "no nay-sayers allowed" but you can't really enforce it. I think it bad form myself. Blogs are supposed to be discussions, not statements followed by unanimous toady-like cries of "Yes!". Don't run your diary about freedom like a gulag

    •  Wisper - My take on this is that Section 2 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      of the 15th Amendment says that: "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
        IANAL, but it doesn't appear to me that the Court can toss out the "appropriate legislation" based on the Court's subjective judgment that the legislation is no longer relevant.
        Justice (LOL) Scalia, if you'll recall" wasmaking public comments that it was politically too hard for Congress to get rid of "racial entitlements" so the Court might have to act.
         That is not Constitutional thinking.
         The Court has stepped on a Constitutional prerogative of Congress and tossed out legislation THAT WAS MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF because of the Court's political preferences about the legislation.

  •  The petition page shows 39 sigs ..with 61 needed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    ...what happens at 100 sigs?  I've never used  Do they promote your petition further once you cross that threshold?  Front-page it?  Feature it?  Mass mail it?  Something?

    I've never posted one or signed one so I am just curious about how the site works.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:00:19 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site