The impact and power of SCOTUS decisions

2013 is the year that SCOTUS unraveled 150 years of social and economic progress in the United States.

In just the last week, the Court has handed down decisions that have taken steps backward in worker’s rights, voting rights, and consumer rights. Gee, can’t wait to see what the rulings are on DOMA & Prop 8. Hmmm, I wonder whatever might they be?

In two cases, SCOTUS pulled back worker’s rights. They ruled that harassment can only take place from one’s supervisor, and they narrowly defined supervisor as someone who has the power to make a “significant change in [your] employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” (via ThinkProgress)

In other words, if I want to harass my subordinate and only HR can fire them, woohoo! GO FOR IT! As long as I don’t have the ability to directly fire you? You’re shit out of luck.

The justices also struck another blow to compassionate conservatism (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) when they ruled in a different case that employers can retaliate against workers who claim harassment. Because it’s now imcumbent upon the worker to prove that the “sole” cause of the dismissal or retaliation was discrimination. No other factors involved, period. How lovely.

Basically, SCOTUS gave a huge FU to the American worker today. Their attitude is one that was prevalent 100 years ago. Be happy you have a job. If you don’t like the way I treat you, you’re welcome to go somewhere else. Without a reference, of course. Good luck to you. Fuck you very much.

Also, in a case that may definitely affect you and me, the justices ruled that customers cannot sue makers of generic drugs for any adverse effects, even if they weren’t noted or labeled on the drug. In a HAHAHAHAHAHA moment, the conservative justices invoked the Supremacy clause HAHAHAHAHAHAHA saying that even though the state’s laws had required proper labeling, the federal laws didn’t – and we all know that federal law trumps state law.

There’s a good short summary of the court’s actions on these cases early this week at The Atlantic.

Also this week, the Supreme Court punted on affirmative action, asking the lower court to look at the case again. They could have noted that the statistics bear out that minorities still comprise a disproportionate percentage of students accepted into and entering college.

Per the National Center for Education Statistics

The percentage of American college students who are Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Black has been increasing. From 1976 to 2010, the percentage of Hispanic students rose from 3 percent to 13 percent, the percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students rose from 2 percent to 6 percent, and the percentage of Black students rose from 9 percent to 14 percent. During the same period, the percentage of White students fell from 83 percent to 61 percent. Race/ethnicity is not reported for nonresident aliens, who made up 2 percent and 3 percent of total enrollment in 1976 and 2010, respectively.

What this means Is that affirmative action is working, and that it has helped us achieve something very close to ethnic parity in colleges.

Per Census 2000
Percentage of population:

	All ages	15−29	College-aged
White	69.1	62.1	61
Black	12	13.4	14
Asian	3.6	4.2	6
Hispanic	12.5	16.9	13

However, as we’ve historically seen, without this oversight, the inclination of American institutions is to directly or indirectly promote racial inequity. Look at the organizations, the workplaces, the states. Which brings me to the next case.

Today, the Voting Rights Act was dealt a mortal blow, with the entire basis of the law struck down.
Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog says this:
“Five justices believe institutional racism and systemic discrimination in voting rights have effectively vanished to their satisfaction.”

One only need review the rhetoric in the states since the election 5 years ago of a black president. Immediately, states began to erode voting rights by enacting unsurpassable roadblocks for so many minority voters.

Per the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law:

At least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.
27 restrictive bills currently pending in 6 states.

25 laws and 2 executive actions passed since the beginning of 2011 in 19 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin).

15 states have passed restrictive voting laws and executive actions that have the potential to impact the 2012 election (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). These states account for 203 electoral votes, or 75 percent of the total needed to win the presidency.

Of these, restrictions from 18 laws and executive actions are currently in effect in 13 states (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).

In the past two years, vetoes, referendums, court decisions, or the Department of Justice have blocked or blunted restrictive measures in 14 states (Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin). Note: this list does not include successful legislative victories such as those in Nebraska and other states.

The NY Times also has a very interesting and telling look at how states affected by the VRA have tried to change law to discriminate. Last year, The Atlantic had a look at state voting restrictions as well.

We have had state leaders admit fully that their voting restrictions were designed to keep minorities from voting so that Republicans could maintain control.

In what universe do the Justices live that they believe that racial inequities no longer exist when it comes to voting?

This entire issue is summed up perfectly with this tweet, and in and of itself, explains why the VRA is still needed. Because the blacks might elect another black dude.

1965-2008: Minorities should be able to vote. 2008, 2012: Black guy elected president. 2013: Let’s rethink that voting rights thing...
— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) June 25, 2013

The proof of the poor judgement of SCOTUS will be in the pudding. Let’s see how many states enact the equivalent of poll taxes, restrictions, Jim Crow and more. By this time next year, I predict that several more red states will enact voting restrictions that will make it difficult for traditionally underserved voters to cast their ballots. And all with the blessing of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. But there's no race-based attitude issues here in the states.

As long as Supreme Court justices rule from ideology rather than law, there can be no real justice in the United States. There can be no real rule of law.