The worst Justice

By Dr. E. Faye Williams
TriceEdneyWire.com Columnist

Our Constitution outlines the Founders’ vision for the structure of our government. At the time it was written, our Constitution guaranteed liberties for individuals that were not to be abridged. It provided for a Legislative Branch responsible for passing laws to benefit all. The Executive Branch was structured to execute laws passed by the Legislative Branch in a fair and equitable manner. The Judicial Branch is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and assure their equitable application.

Throughout history, there’ve been questionable actions by each branch that demonstrate deviation from the letter of the law. When personal freedom was touted as foundational principle and the country endorsed the institution of slavery to the recent recognition of full rights of citizenship for LGBT communities, our nation has been in a transformative evolution of laws and culture.

Once, the Judicial Branch was the branch of government Black people relied on for protection of our rights. Mostly, this branch, specifically the Supreme Court, has been a responsible partner in securing and directing the application of laws in a manner that would guarantee full rights of citizenship to us. We’ve depended on the selection and judgment of Consti­tutional scholars who had a realistic perspective on real-life application of laws and their impact on real people. We’ve depended on Justices who could issue rulings not colored by their own biases, but were based on the most realistic interpretation of law. This control of personal bias was demonstrated in the much heralded Brown v. Board of Education ruling issued, despite the presence of known racist Justices, with a unanimous verdict.

Our latest crops of Supreme Court Justices (The Roberts’ Court) have issued rulings that seem to indicate a shift in perspective. The Citizens United ruling indicates a regressive shift in philosophy to the principles of the Taney Court which issued the dreaded Dred Scott decision.

There’s debate as to which among the current crop of Justices is the greatest enemy of civil rights. Some would say the smooth indifference of the Chief Justice to the more reactionary of his colleagues would tag him with that label. Others would say Samuel Alito’s reserved acerbic manner would give him the title. Others would give the nod to Clarence Thomas. After all, the height of arrogant indifference is to deny others the opportunity to receive the same benefits that led to one’s own success. Although each of these Justices merits consideration as the greatest enemy of civil rights, I would award it to Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia’s public utterances are as offensive as his official decisions and give clear indication to his bias and racial animus.

Recently, Scalia demonstrated the depth of his contempt for Blacks when he described the protections of the Voting Rights Act as “the perpetuation of racial entitlement.” This is among the greatest insults he could direct to us. He says instead of a guaranteed right of citizenship, the right of Blacks to vote is an undeserved privileged granted by the benevolence of some long ago written law. There’s no other group that would allow an inherent right of citizenship to be denigrated by likening it to a perk, nor do I suspect Scalia would classify his own voting right as a racial entitlement granted because of the historical tradition of privileged whites. As a child of Italian immigrants, it would seem Scalia would have greater empathy for the challenges of citizenship faced by “out” groups and that he’d acknowledge the difference between a right and an entitlement.

Recently, Scalia stated that the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect “only the Blacks.” Students of history will counter his position with the correct argument that the Amendment was ratified to do just that. It affirmed citizenship and established voting rights for former slaves.

This article originally published in the November 11, 2013 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.