gracchusdixit

Just when you might have thought that the conservative cabal that now controls the Supreme Court of the United States could not possibly sink to a lower level of legal, intellectual and moral bankruptcy, they did it again.  Last week, in Veasey vs. Perry, the Court decided to let Texas’ blatantly racist voter ID law remain in effect during the upcoming mid-term election, making it all but impossible for several hundred thousand voters—mostly minorities—to participate.  This, despite the fact that, after a trial lasting two weeks, the Texas law was declared unconstitutional by a Federal District Court and permanently enjoined.

Texas appealed that decision to the notorious Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Louisiana, Mississippi, and, of course, Texas itself.  The Fifth Circuit may well be the most overtly ideological in the country.  It is certainly the most corrupt.  Ten of its members are Republican appointees, and most are in the pocket of the oil industry or the Christian right or both.  They have waged open war variously against the EPA, the Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, and the President of the United States.  Several members have accepted trips, junkets, and directorships funded by Big Oil.  One took thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the now defunct Enron and then wrote a decision reducing Enron’s taxes.  Another ruled that undocumented immigrants lack Constitutional rights because they are “not people”.  Still another intervened to stop a television news organization from broadcasting a story about a crooked local televangelist.  And one, having been declared guilty of flagrant ethics violations, refuses to step aside and leave the bench.

Given this appalling record, it will not surprise you that the Fifth Circuit “stayed” the injunction against the Texas ID law.  Its excuse was that stopping the law would “disturb the election process of the State of Texas just nine days before early voting begins”.

The truly “disturbing” thing, of course, is the Texas law itself, which is one of the most draconian and arbitrary in the nation.  That is saying something, given the sweeping attack on voting rights launched by Republican legislatures in more than a dozen states.  Texas won’t accept student IDs, or IDs issued by Native American tribal communities and recognized by federal law, or even IDs issued by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.  To get one of the few forms of ID the Texas law does allow, applicants must present a birth certificate and if they don’t have one, they must pay.  If that isn’t an illegal “poll tax,” then it’s hard to imagine what is.

Even more “disturbing” is the decision of the highest court in the land to stand aside and let such a dreadful law stand unchallenged.  It was Antonin Scalia—no surprise—who issued the decision, and he did so without a word of explanation or justification.  This, the legal experts say, is not uncommon when last-minute decisions are made on the eve of an election.  Nevertheless, it is uncommonly irresponsible.  The right to vote is the most fundamental underpinning of our democracy, and the prospect of voter suppression is far too important to be swept aside without a word.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood this.  That is why she worked through the night to prepare her dissent, joined by the two other women on the court.  In a blistering rebuke, she argued for upholding a permanent injunction against the Texas law.  “Texas,” she said, “is no mere historical artifact.  To the contrary, Texas has been found in violation of the Voting Rights Act in every redistricting cycle from and after 1970.”  She went on to declare what should be obvious even to Antonin Scalia and his co-conspirators on the Court: “The greatest threat to public confidence in elections…is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law.”

Justice Ginsburg did much more than issue a rebuke to the dreadful Fifth Circuit and the duplicitous State of Texas.  She did a service to the nation by exposing the sham, and the shame, of the Supreme Court itself and its right-wing agenda.  If there is anyone left who has any doubt about that agenda, let him read Veasey vs. Perry.