Saturday, October 26, 2019

Neil Gorsuch Has Revealed Conservative Justices' Partisanship

Justices Gorsuch and Roberts.
Judges and Supreme Court Justices are supposed to base their rulings on the law, the Constitution and the facts yet increasingly we are witnessing the conservatives on the U.S.S Supreme Court and right wing Republican appointed judges - especially Trump appointees, a number of which have been rated as unfit by the American Bar Association - motivated by political ideology and partisan affiliation and even personal religious belief rather than basing rulings on the language of the Constitution, statutes and scientific and medical facts. In the recent oral arguments before the Supreme Court concerning whether LGBT Americans are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Gorsuch tipped his hand that he may be more worried by the reaction of the ugliest elements of the GOP base - think Christofascists and evangelicals - if the Court rules that it is illegal to discriminate against gays and transgender employees. Indeed, Gorsuch commented on potential "massive social upheaval" which suggests that had he been on the Court at the time of Brown v. Board of Education, we'd still have segregated schools.  A piece in The Advocate looks at Gorsuch's candid and dangerous agenda.  Here are excerpts:
As a frequent critic of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and a long-standing activist for transgender rights, I am probably one of the few members of my community who feels grateful for Justice Neil Gorsuch’s acknowledgement that he fears extending employment non-discrimination protections to transgender Americans would unleash “massive social upheaval.” I found Justice Gorsuch’s remark — which many have interpreted as an indication that the Court may decline to protect transgender workers — to be refreshing for its honesty and transparency. If Gorsuch votes against extending protections, he acknowledged candidly, he would do so not on the basis of law, fairness, or judicial philosophy, but because of his assessment of public opinion, something Supreme Court justices rarely concede they take into consideration.
Integrity is obviously a crucial attribute of any judge, but has been sorely lacking in recent years among members of the Court’s conservative majority. To take an example I know well, earlier this year, a slim 5-4 majority accepted the Trump administration's false assertion that allowing transgender troops to serve posed a “risk to military effectiveness and lethality," thus allowing the president to reinstate the military’s transgender ban. But all service chiefs had testified that inclusive policy was a success, and the administration's claim about risk was based on medical arguments that the American Medical Association and former Military Surgeons General and U.S. Surgeons General had repudiated.
When a court’s rulings depend on the elision of fact, civil rights and even democracy itself can suffer, and the transgender military ruling, unfortunately, is far from exceptional. Critics have suggested that the Court’s most important decisions in recent years, including dismantling the Voting Rights Act and upholding the travel ban, have ignored key facts in service of partisan ends.
Given the conservative majority's arguably vexed relationship with evidence, Justice Gorsuch's integrity is admirable. But if his acknowledgment is refreshing for its candor, it is troubling at the same time, as the premise of his revelation — that a ruling extending protections would promote upheaval — has no basis in fact. Numerous polls confirm that the American public overwhelmingly supports extending non-discrimination protections to transgender employees. As a political science professor and LGBT advocate, I am unaware of any massive social upheaval in the 21 states whose laws explicitly protect transgender individuals . . . he is certainly entitled to his imagination. But his concerns have no basis in reality.
What likely worries Justice Gorsuch is that some conservatives believe that treating transgender employees equally violates their religious convictions. Setting aside that many evangelical Christians support employment non-discrimination for LGBT Americans, civil rights protected by laws and by the Constitution should not depend on the public’s comfort. Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 ruling prohibiting states from establishing racial discrimination in public schools, led to social unrest. But it was unquestionably correctly decided. By revealing his concerns about social upheaval, Justice Gorsuch has given up the ghost on the conservative majority’s true partisan priority, whether the Court thinks the GOP’s base will like a decision. That is dangerous partisanship that has no place on the bench.
[I]t is ethically unacceptable to prioritize the religious injury that some employers might believe themselves to suffer if forced to treat transgender workers equally with the tangible injury that transgender employees suffer when they are denied employment on the basis of their gender identity. Some employers surely believe that they compromise their religious convictions when they are forced to treat women, racial minorities, and Muslims equally, but catering to such beliefs would be immoral. Whether one interprets religious objections to treating transgender employees equally as unreasonable animus or reasonable religious belief, there is no comparison between such objections and the consequences of being fired. That Gorsuch and his conservative colleagues on the bench would entertain the comparison is, at best, problematic.
Justice Gorsuch’s concern is even at odds with his judicial philosophy. Gorsuch professes a commitment to “textualism,” . . . . that explicitly disavows any concern for public opinion.
Eve Sedgwick, had an insightful reading of Justice Byron White's opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick—the now-overturned 1986 case that allowed states to criminalize same-sex sex: She demonstrated that White’s ruling against gays and lesbians depended on a refusal to recognize hard facts, a maneuver she labeled as "willful ignorance." According to Sedgwick, White's sidestepping of evidence he did not like was a “contemptuous demonstration that powerful people don't have to be acute or right."
Gorsuch’s stated concern about “massive social upheaval” smacks of the same conceit. As conservative jurists twist facts to sustain partisan rulings that injure everyday Americans, progressives are becoming increasingly vocal about the possible need for judicial reform. Hopefully, Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues will heed such warnings before driving the Court and the democracy itself off a cliff.

1 comment:

EdA said...

Ah, the Moslem ban. A stunning example of allowing personal pre-judices to drive the lack of reality testing.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)

I have never been to law school, but it is worth noting that immediately after the Republiscum injustices apologize for Korematsu, the decision that gave legal validity to the imprisonment of Japanese-American citizens, they went on to say effectively that it was OK in practice to use religion as a basis to keep Moslems from countries that Donald Trump didn't approve of outside the U.S.


The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords
this Court the opportunity to make express what is al-
ready obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it
was decided, has been overruled in the court of history,
and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitu-
tion.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
* * *
Under these circumstances, the Government has set
forth a sufficient national security justification to survive
rational basis review.

The Chief Injustice of the United States does note, with examples from George Washington to George W. Bush, (pp 28-29)

The President of the United States possesses an ex-
traordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on
their behalf. Our Presidents have frequently used that
power to espouse the principles of religious freedom and
tolerance on which this Nation was founded.


and then says "So what" with the statement:

Yet it cannot be denied that the Federal
Government and the Presidents who have carried its laws
into effect have—from the Nation’s earliest days—
performed unevenly in living up to those inspiring words.

and proceeds to validate this by rubber-stamping Degenerate Don's third effort at imposing a Moslem ban by saying that the ban does provide for a great many potential exemptions -- to which the dissents retort by pointing out that these are essentially meaningless window-dressing because almost no one who seemed eligible for an exemption was actually able to get an exemption from the ban.

Sadly, ample other examples abound.

I hope that Injustice Kennedy is appropriately enjoying his remarkably unexpected retirement from the administration of injustice.