One Person ... Five Votes

This election is important because of the death of Antonin Scalia and the aging of other members. The balance of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is at stake. Both sides have made this a campaign issue, citing the controversies that cause the most concern among passionate voters: abortion, the 2^nd Amendment, minority rights, criminal justice. 

An issue that is never mentioned is the most important. That involves interpretation of Article I, section 2 as it relates to the right of the People to vote in elections.

In 1982, SCOTUS, in Karcher v. Daggett, struck down a New Jersey redistricting scheme. The Court ruled that the 14^th Amendment Equal Protection Clause should apply to the right to vote, affirming the principle of “one person, one vote.” 

The NJ plan was discriminatory to minorities by reducing their power vis a vis districts that had a non-minority majority.

The precedent was followed in Davis v. Bandemer, in 1986. SCOTUS decided that Indiana’s redistricting plan could be challenged in court, but the justices split on the standards to apply to the practice. 

The case was complicated by the contradictory briefs sent to the court. In Indiana, the minority Democrats objected to Republican gerrymandering that watered down Democratic votes. But an amicus brief was filed by Democrats in other states—including California, where Dems controlled the Legislature and hence the redistricting—urging the court to stay out of politics. 

The members of the court agreed that the issue was one that should be presented to the court, but had trouble deciding the appropriate standards for deciding constitutionality. Justices White, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell and Stevens agreed on parts of the majority opinion, but not others. C.J. Burger, O'Connor, Powell all filed separate opinions concurring, dissenting, joining - in different parts. 

Then, in 2004, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the court ruled that gerrymandering was a political issue and not a fit subject for the courts. They upheld Pennsylvania’s plan that eliminated two Democrats from office in the next election, by redrawing districts after the state lost 2 seats in the 2000 census.

The plurality opinion was written by Antonin Scalia, who denied that he was overruling the precedents, merely following "original intent." He was joined by C.J. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Clarence Thomas.

Anthony Kennedy concurred, providing the 5^th and deciding vote. Kennedy agreed with Scalia that the issue should not be “justiciable” because he couldn’t think of a way to establish standards for defining when gerrymandering was unconstitutional, but he didn’t fully agree with Scalia, hoping that some future court could come up with acceptable standards.

The dissenting votes in favor of striking the Pennsylvania plan were J.P.Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 And that is the current law.

In the “off-year election of 2010, when Democrats were numbed by the effects of the 2008 crash and the cries against the bail-out and the bruising fight of the ACA (enacted in March). Republicans elected many governors and state legislatures. It was a disaster for Democrats and democracy because it was a Census year, when redistricting is required because population shifts cause losses or gains of seats in the House of Representatives.

The national Republican Party anticipated this and were ready with computerized plans for gerrymandering Democratic voters out of any possibility of controlling the House. Districts were redrawn so that all Democrats were packed in one district. Other districts were drawn so that any remaining Democrats were outnumbered by Republicans.

Of course this is made possible because African-Americans make up a large share of Democratic votes. Minority communities are often densely populated, while minorities are excluded from suburbs and rural areas. That makes it easy to take a county with a gross majority of Democratic votes result in more Republicans in Congress than Democrats.

California eventually tried to solve the confusion that resulted in radical redistricting every time the Legislature shifted power in the volatile population state. California often had Republican governors ready to veto any plan that gave Democrats an edge.

California created a Redistricting Commission that is nominally impartial, or at least bipartisan. In other democratic countries, this sort of plan has been in place for many years.

So, a new president will nominate one or more judges, possibly changing the balance of the court. Since 2004, only Breyer and Ginsburg on one side, and Thomas on the other side, remain on the court.

If the court gets to decide a redistricting case, will it be willing to impose a standard for evaluation of redistricting plans based on a principle of Equal Protection, and one person, one vote?

And then . . . they could deal with the Voter ID laws that are clearly aimed at reducing the minority vote.

SCOTUS TWINS

Observations about the latest SCOTUS rulings:

In one case, the court found LWOPP sentences for juvenile violative of 8th Amendment (cruel & unusual punishment) except for murder. In another case, the court upheld a federal law authorizing extended civil commitments of sex offenders based on threats of future danger to children based on proof of propensities to commit sex crimes.

For those interested in the soap opera of shifting alliances on the court, the usual suspects dissented in both case: Scalia and Thomas. In one case, Roberts joined the majority holding but not its rationale. In the other, Alito did the same. Kennedy wrote the majority (5-4) opinion in one, Bryer the other (7-2).

In the debate of left vs. right, so-called “libertarians” immediately decried both rulings. One interfered with states eliminating vicious teenagers. The other upheld a civil law based on a premise that was not literally found in the Constitution. Conservatives will rage about reference in the court’s opinion to international standards of morality in sentencing.

The left is likely to approve the juvenile decision but might be (at least should be) troubled that the court was not troubled by a law that permits lengthy involuntary incarceration based on unreliable medical predictions of future dangerousness.

As Solicitor Gen, court nominee Kagan had argued support for the federal law, thus making new enemies, or at least reinforcing the enmity of her opposition.

In practice, neither case has much impact in California. The vast majority of our vicious juveniles with LWOPP sentences are there for murders. Only a few crimes (eg. kidnap for ransom) authorize that sentence and resentencing to life with possibility of parole or a sentence of years will pose no great barrier to a virtual life sentence. Adding up of consecutive sentences including the many enhancements provided by the criminal statutes can result in sentences like: 184 years, of which the criminal must serve 85%.

California has a law analagous to the federal civil commitment to extend incarceration of sexual offenders. Our sexually violent predator (SVP) law is being applied every day in our courts.

Obama and The Supremes: hit or miss?

The political spin amounting to a tornado is beginning in the imminent choice of a replacement for Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.

The Right righteously demands a non-activist moderate instead of a radical liberal. Coming from the same shrill voices that applauded the nominations of Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Sam Alito, who were intended to and have tilted the Court sharply to the right for the coming decades, amounts to monumental chutzpah.

None of these men is moderate when it comes to the critical close calls (the 5-4 votes) on social issues that have the most impact on our country. On issues such as racial and gender equality, access to the courts, executive vs. legislative power, federalism, government vs. business interests, criminal rights, all four of these men always — I mean always — find rationales to serve their radical biased personal views against abortion but for capital punishment, against expansion of civil liberties and for expansion of corporate freedom, against regulation to redress inequality and for limiting access to justice for individuals.

They mouth the words of respect for precedent unless they can find intellectually dubious paths around it. They decry judicial activism that overturns laws that express the will of The People unless they disagree with such laws and can find excuses to overturn them by resorting to a strict construction of the Constitution.

Reaction from The Left has been predictably disorganized. The most vocal have been particular one issue interest groups : environment, labor, press and so on. The loudest voices have called for an "identity" choice, i.e, a woman, Hispanic, or other minority to make the Court look more like America – as if that is a good thing in and of itself.

My view is that choosing on those bases could be disastrous. Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor are examples. Single issue candidates might be just as bad. In my legal experience, for instance, those only interested in womens’ issues are often disinterested in criminal rights for others, especially where women are the perceived victims. The same is true about any single interest group.

On the other hand, Obama has made comments that might presage other problems. He wants someone who, though intelligently grounded in The Law, is also compassionate, possesses common sense, and understands the struggles of people in the real world. This scares the indignant intellects of The Right, who read liberal judicial activist into the definition.

It scares me for a different reason. I remember California’s recall of state Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Rose Bird, on the complaint that she and her allies on the Court imposed their personal views against capital punishment to overturn numerous death sentences. The recall campaign was actually funded by corporate interests that were more concerned with the Bird Court’s bias against them. A succession of conservative governors — Republican (Dukmejian and Wilson) and Democrat (Grey Davis) made appointments that turned the Court around. The result pleased corporate lawyers. The California Supreme Court now affirms virtually all death sentences, overtly favoring compassion for crime victims over the perceived sympathy for criminals of the previous Court. The conservative justices are no less result oriented than those they replaced. They just support their rulings with different reasons.

The lesson I learn reading these cases over the last thirty years is that "compassion" and "common sense" is just as subjective and useless a standard as "strict construction" and "judicial activism".

Obama’s dilemma is that he is intellectually honest, respectful of the Constitution, and a decent person. I fear that he will not be as ruthless in his choice as W. and his neo-cons were. Obama is not likely to insist on a litmus test that includes ideological orthodoxy. In other words, Obama will not choose someone as far to the Left as those chosen for the Right.

Pundits and Court historians like to observe that presidents have been often surprised and disappointed by their choices. True, Eisenhower regretted Warren, FDR regretted Frankfurter. But modern appointments have not provided such shocks. Vetting is much more thorough; no longer are justices seen as rewards for lengthy service. Disgusted by the Warren experience and Roe v. Wade, the Right has been vigilant about critical issues and disappointments have been rare exceptions. Nixon misfired on Blackmun and Powell, but he satisfied the Right with Renquist who Reagan elevated to Chief.

The truth is that Obama’s first choice — and any he is likely to make in this or his next term — are not likely to radically alter the Rightward lean of the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. Except for Scalia (73), the other sure reactionary votes are in their prime: Thomas (61), Alito (59), Roberts (54). John Paul Stevens (89), Ginsburg (76 , with cancer), and Breyer (71) make up the usual opposition to the four votes from the unified Right. Souter, now retired, sometimes joined the three moderates. The so-called swing vote is usually cast by Anthony Kennedy (73), a Reagan appointee.

So replacement of Souter with a certain vote on the Left will not change the Court’s math. But a mistaken choice — a stealth conservative on issues other than the one the judge has clearly in focus, a weak personality who cannot influence others on the Court, or an older person who will retire too soon — would be a tragedy.

"KNOCK KNOCK KNOCKIN' ON HEAVEN'S DOOR ..."

The Justice League Strikes Again
Superheroes for the New Age

In case you thought there was any life in the 4th Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of our homes, the US Supreme Court’s 5 X-Men mutant warriors have stomped again on the corpse.
Antonin Scalia, The Robed Crusader — whose superpower is the ability to erase The Constitution, indeed, all of judicial history — wrote the majority opinion that killed it.
With his faithful sidekick, Clarence Thomas, and the newest members of The League - CJ "LONG JOHN" ROBERTS & SAM ALITO the Magneto - Scalia is finally winning the never ending battle to make America safe for Police Power, Government, and Business interests!

ONCE UPON A TIME, IN THE DARK NIGHTS OF GOTHAM'S PAST, WHEN COURTS WERE BOUND BY THE IMAGINED RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ....
Policeserving search warrants or seeking to make an arrest in a house were forced to first knock, announce their presence, and give a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to let them in.

They could break in if there is no response in a reasonable amount of time or if there was an “exigency,” such as a reasonable belief that the occupants would destroy evidence before entry or have access to weapons.

The rule was put in place by the weak minded WARREN COURT and codified in statutes as in California Penal Code sections 844 & 1531
... intended to protect the right to privacy, and to protect occupants and police from a violent confrontation resulting from a sudden break in, startling frightened householders.
To enforce the rule, courts since 1914 excluded the evidence seized in violation.

This exclusionary rule is what stuck in the throats of The Justice League for all this time. That the criminal should be freed just because the constable blundered was a travesty!
The Robed Crusader finally gave voice to the alternative remedy long proposed --- the homeowner can sue the police officer for violation of his rights!!!

I remember when the exclusionary rule was under attack from the Right and I took an informal poll of police officers I ran across while in court. I asked them whether they would prefer to be sued rather than have courts exclude evidence. I found very few cops who wanted to be sued.

Of course, few will do so — especially if they are in prison. There will be some extreme cases — as history shows — in which the police break into and trash the wrong house, shoot innocent occupants, get shot themselves by people protecting their “castle.”

AND SO ... a new day is dawning on Gotham ...
Because of the youthful vigor of the NEW MAJORITY, THE JUSTICE LEAGUE MAY FLOURISH FOR THIRTY YEARS ... giving America at long last the ORDER it needs to thrive ...

... and the Justice and Justices we deserve.