High Court Takes Giant Steps Backward
WASHINGTON -- The new Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been in decades. It's also meaner.
It is a dream come true for Republican presidencies dating back to the "strict constructionist" court aspirations of President Richard Nixon and now made possible by the conservative George W. Bush.
WASHINGTON -- The new Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been in decades. It's also meaner.
It is a dream come true for Republican presidencies dating back to the "strict constructionist" court aspirations of President Richard Nixon and now made possible by the conservative George W. Bush.
The court under Chief Justice John Roberts seems intent on rolling back advances in race and gender relations that have helped America achieve a more equal and humane society.
The 5-4 decisions of the conservative court dealt with race, abortion, free speech, church-state relations and a host of other issues. They also showed a pro-business and anti-consumer slant.
The majority justices are running counter to the current trend against rightwing ideologues and a power-grabbing unilateral presidency.
On race, the court apparently has decided to return to the "good old days" when separate was considered equal when it came to racial segregation, a concept that the high court discarded in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., which desegregated the nation's schools.
Last week, the Supreme Court junked the Brown rule when it struck down the use of race in school admissions in Seattle and Louisville. Officials had used race as a factor in school assignments in order to build diversity.
The historic Brown ruling paved the way for the banning of segregated public facilities, hotels, restaurants and theaters.
The Roberts court also upheld an unconditional ban on the procedure that opponents dub "partial birth abortion." Supporters of abortion rights see this decision as a harbinger of doom for the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.
The court also ruled that public school principals and teachers can discipline students who display signs or wear t-shirts that carry messages counter to the schools' anti-drug policies. The decision overturned a 1969 ruling that students do not shed their rights "at the schoolhouse door."
And the justices threw out a 1911 ruling that barred manufacturers from setting minimum retail prices on goods.
In a blow to the principle of separation of church and state, the court rejected a challenge by the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" against a White House program that helps church charities competing with government programs obtain federal grants.
The ruling is a bow to the president who for the first time in history set up a White House office to promote faith-based entities.
The conservative jurists who have won the day in most cases included the usual suspects -- Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. So much for the hope that Kennedy would be as moderate as former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in pivotal cases.
The liberal justices -- who were outraged at the court's far-right swing -- included John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Breyer summed it up when he said: "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much."
And yet, it seems the old cliche that the Supreme Court reads the newspapers has hit home -- at least when it comes to the shameful treatment and torture of detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a surprise ruling, the Court agreed to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use federal courts to challenge their imprisonment, reversing a decision in April not to hear arguments in the case.
With the Roberts Court in command apparently for a long time, all I can say is: "Cry the beloved country."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
WASHINGTON -- The new Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been in decades. It's also meaner.
It is a dream come true for Republican presidencies dating back to the "strict constructionist" court aspirations of President Richard Nixon and now made possible by the conservative George W. Bush.
The court under Chief Justice John Roberts seems intent on rolling back advances in race and gender relations that have helped America achieve a more equal and humane society.
The 5-4 decisions of the conservative court dealt with race, abortion, free speech, church-state relations and a host of other issues. They also showed a pro-business and anti-consumer slant.
The majority justices are running counter to the current trend against rightwing ideologues and a power-grabbing unilateral presidency.
On race, the court apparently has decided to return to the "good old days" when separate was considered equal when it came to racial segregation, a concept that the high court discarded in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., which desegregated the nation's schools.
Last week, the Supreme Court junked the Brown rule when it struck down the use of race in school admissions in Seattle and Louisville. Officials had used race as a factor in school assignments in order to build diversity.
The historic Brown ruling paved the way for the banning of segregated public facilities, hotels, restaurants and theaters.
The Roberts court also upheld an unconditional ban on the procedure that opponents dub "partial birth abortion." Supporters of abortion rights see this decision as a harbinger of doom for the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.
The court also ruled that public school principals and teachers can discipline students who display signs or wear t-shirts that carry messages counter to the schools' anti-drug policies. The decision overturned a 1969 ruling that students do not shed their rights "at the schoolhouse door."
And the justices threw out a 1911 ruling that barred manufacturers from setting minimum retail prices on goods.
In a blow to the principle of separation of church and state, the court rejected a challenge by the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" against a White House program that helps church charities competing with government programs obtain federal grants.
The ruling is a bow to the president who for the first time in history set up a White House office to promote faith-based entities.
The conservative jurists who have won the day in most cases included the usual suspects -- Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. So much for the hope that Kennedy would be as moderate as former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in pivotal cases.
The liberal justices -- who were outraged at the court's far-right swing -- included John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Breyer summed it up when he said: "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much."
And yet, it seems the old cliche that the Supreme Court reads the newspapers has hit home -- at least when it comes to the shameful treatment and torture of detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a surprise ruling, the Court agreed to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use federal courts to challenge their imprisonment, reversing a decision in April not to hear arguments in the case.
With the Roberts Court in command apparently for a long time, all I can say is: "Cry the beloved country."
WASHINGTON -- The new Supreme Court is more conservative than it has been in decades. It's also meaner.
It is a dream come true for Republican presidencies dating back to the "strict constructionist" court aspirations of President Richard Nixon and now made possible by the conservative George W. Bush.
The court under Chief Justice John Roberts seems intent on rolling back advances in race and gender relations that have helped America achieve a more equal and humane society.
The 5-4 decisions of the conservative court dealt with race, abortion, free speech, church-state relations and a host of other issues. They also showed a pro-business and anti-consumer slant.
The majority justices are running counter to the current trend against rightwing ideologues and a power-grabbing unilateral presidency.
On race, the court apparently has decided to return to the "good old days" when separate was considered equal when it came to racial segregation, a concept that the high court discarded in the 1954 landmark decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., which desegregated the nation's schools.
Last week, the Supreme Court junked the Brown rule when it struck down the use of race in school admissions in Seattle and Louisville. Officials had used race as a factor in school assignments in order to build diversity.
The historic Brown ruling paved the way for the banning of segregated public facilities, hotels, restaurants and theaters.
The Roberts court also upheld an unconditional ban on the procedure that opponents dub "partial birth abortion." Supporters of abortion rights see this decision as a harbinger of doom for the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.
The court also ruled that public school principals and teachers can discipline students who display signs or wear t-shirts that carry messages counter to the schools' anti-drug policies. The decision overturned a 1969 ruling that students do not shed their rights "at the schoolhouse door."
And the justices threw out a 1911 ruling that barred manufacturers from setting minimum retail prices on goods.
In a blow to the principle of separation of church and state, the court rejected a challenge by the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" against a White House program that helps church charities competing with government programs obtain federal grants.
The ruling is a bow to the president who for the first time in history set up a White House office to promote faith-based entities.
The conservative jurists who have won the day in most cases included the usual suspects -- Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. So much for the hope that Kennedy would be as moderate as former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in pivotal cases.
The liberal justices -- who were outraged at the court's far-right swing -- included John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Breyer summed it up when he said: "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much."
And yet, it seems the old cliche that the Supreme Court reads the newspapers has hit home -- at least when it comes to the shameful treatment and torture of detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a surprise ruling, the Court agreed to review whether Guantanamo Bay detainees can use federal courts to challenge their imprisonment, reversing a decision in April not to hear arguments in the case.
With the Roberts Court in command apparently for a long time, all I can say is: "Cry the beloved country."