Supreme Court

It must be true that justice is blind. Blind to cultural values and situations; blind to the well being of individuals; blind to the world at large. Actually, it only seems that way. Each of the nine Supreme Court Justices is part of the political arena despite their claims of jurisprudence and allegiance to the Constitution.

In SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, The Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act of 1965 wherein

any “standard, practice, or procedure that results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color,…”

Further:

In those covered jurisdictions, the Act provides that no change in voting procedures can take effect until approved by specified federal authorities in Washington, D. C. … Such approval is known as “preclearance.” The coverage formula and preclearance requirement were initially set to expire after five years, but the Act has been reauthorized sev­eral times. In 2006, the Act was reauthorized for an additional 25 years, but the coverage formula was not changed. Chief Roberts wrote the opinion saying “Regardless of how one looks at that record, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the “pervasive,” “flagrant,” “widespread,” and “rampant” discrimination that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation in 1965.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The covered jurisdictions were nine states:

Within two hours, Texas changed its congressional districts to eliminate as much as possible non-white populations. Attorney General Holder already has filed suit against the Texas redistricting.

North Carolina changed voting sites to make it impossible for non-whites and college students to cast votes. The other states are not far behind.

These obviously party -driven abuses involve tens of thousands of citizens who will have to go the extra mile to cast a vote – if they can.

There is no Constitutional restraint related to dates. The Supreme Court should have had the “judgment” to interpret principle rather than an arbitrary date, which, by definition, was still valid.

The blind spot of justice is an illusion. We must understand that the Supreme Court is driven by politics as much as any other branch of government. Sadly, the justices are not subject to reelection or challenge against the very Constitution they portend.

Ancient Mariner

 

Leave a Reply