DANIELS: The Supreme Court's True Colors
Lee A. Daniels | 7/10/2013, 3 p.m.
Last week, the Supreme Court’s conservative faction revealed more clearly than ever before its true colors. It showed that in the political war over America’s future it supports those who want to return to the exclusionary policies and practices of the past.
That this is guiding principle of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito is no surprise. But their contempt for using the law to right injustice and expand the franchise of democracy has never before been so nakedly displayed
The conservative justices’ posture was apparent not just in the decisions narrowing affirmative action and eviscerating the key “pre-clearance” provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It showed itself as well in the court’s decision properly striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and in upholding a lower court’s ruling invalidating California’s anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. And finally, these justices’ callous conservatism was at the heart of the court’s limiting workers’ protections against harassment in the workplace. That latter decision, Vance v. Ball State University, received far less media attention than the other cases.
But, like them, it underscores the fact that, albeit the progress forged in protecting individuals’ rights, discrimination – especially against people of color, White women, and gays and lesbians – remains a constant in large and small ways.
The conservatives’ opinions of last week have as much to do with establishing “fairness” as the court’s infamous Citizens United decision of 2010 had to do with “free speech” for multi-billion-dollar corporations. On the contrary, it was merely the smokescreen for freeing the conservative elite to spend billions of dollars to defeat President Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
Similarly, an oily pretense saturates the conservatives’ positions in the Vance, Voting Rights, and affirmative action cases. They have nothing to do with racial fairness. Instead, like the notorious 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, they hide their intent to shore up White privilege behind sham notions of “color-blindness.”
It’s worth remembering that in the Plessy era, a rhetorical allegiance to color-blindness was central to racists’ assertion that the doctrine of “separate but equal” was a fair ordering of American society. Such a notion – effectively the law of the land for the next six decades – was not only profoundly undemocratic but, operationally speaking, nonsensical. That the Plessy court accepted it provoked Charles L. Black, Jr., the White legal scholar who had allied himself with Thurgood Marshall and the Civil Rights Movement, some 60 years later to characterize the 8-to-1 majority opinion as one in which “the curves of callousness and stupidity intersect at their respective maxima.”
Professor Black’s words fit both the radical views of the court’s current conservative faction – and the increasingly overt breaches of professional decorum of three of them. From Thomas’ refusal to ask questions during cases’ oral arguments, to Scalia’s racist and homophobic comments on and off the bench, to Alito’s misogynistic behavior toward Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, they’ve shown that, in fact, they have little respect for tradition and propriety.