The Scales of Justice are atilt
12th August 2024 · 0 Comments
There’s no getting around it. Federal courts with Republican appointees’ majorities are not colorblind to justice. These partisans bring to the bench the beliefs and policies of the Republican Party. But they shouldn’t be. Lady Justice may be colorblind, but she is not party blind.
Congress should pass a law mandating term limits for federal judges and justices because Republican appointees over the past few decades have turned partisan in their decisions to the detriment of Americans who are being attacked underhandedly by the partisan rulings from the benches.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What type of power do judges with lifetime appointments enjoy?
The U.S. Supreme Court is showing its Republican tail feathers. It has voted 6-3 to do heinous things like reversing Roe v. Wade and bowing down to states’ rights. Donald Trump Sr. bragged that he got rid of women’s rights to choose after the reproductive rights law stood for 50 years. As a result, one in three women live in a state under a Trump abortion ban.
If we’re being honest, these conservative judges’ and justices’ rulings ignore settled law. These extreme-right jurists are acting outside the law and bending the arc of justice in ways contrary to the dispensation of fairness and equity their rulings are meant to distribute.
To be fair, they are not meting out justice but injustice and prejudicial rulings that favor the wealthy and well-connected.
Look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2024 decision to give Trump a monopolistic get-out-of-jail-free card by expanding presidential immunity.
In addition, at least two Republican justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are suspected of having broken a series of ethics rules. Still, unlike other federal judges, they face no consequences or penalties. None.
Then, they insult our intelligence by acting like the millions in merchandise and property they’ve received are justifiable gifts.
Thomas’ wife, Jennie Thomas, was reportedly involved in the January 6 insurrection plot, but he has refused to recuse himself from such cases. The same can be said about Thomas regarding instances where his benefactors are involved before the Court.
Justice Alito’s wife flies the American flag upside down on their property, a symbol of which indicates one is in protest of the government. Definitely not a sign of neutrality, as is expected of the members of the Supreme Court.
Then there’s the gerrymandering and voter nullification issue. Last May, the Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with defendants in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP that partisan gerrymandering is a part of the good ole American way – the founding fathers did it.
Then there is U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The Court, sometimes called the “Fifth Circus” by some who practice before it, has been overturned more than any other court this term.
Even the conservative Supreme Court Justices Kavanaugh, Thomas and Roberts have found many of the Fifth Circuit rulings untenable.
The Court has been involved in rulings that weaken voting rights. Indeed, Judge Edith H. Jones, appointed by Ronald Reagan, is the subject of several suspect rulings regarding voting rights. Judge Jones is a case study example of term limits for federally appointed judges.
In 2013, several groups filed a judicial complaint against Judge Jones.
The May 6, 2013, complaint filed by the NAACP, the Texas Civil Rights Project and the Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program cited discriminatory comments by Jones at a lecture entitled “Federal Death Penalty Review” at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law on February 20, 2013.
According to the complaint, In her remarks, Judge Jones made the following points:
• The United States system of justice provides a positive service to capital-case defendants by imposing a death sentence because the defendants are likely to make peace with God only in the moment before imminent execution;
• Certain “racial groups like African Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime,” are “‘prone’ to commit acts of violence” and get involved in more violent and “heinous” crimes than people of other ethnicities;
• Claims of racism, innocence, arbitrariness and international standards are simply “red herrings” used by opponents of capital punishment.
• Capital defendants who raise claims of “mental retardation” abuse the system.
• The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia prohibiting execution of persons who are “mentally retarded” was ill-advised and created a “slippery slope.”
The speech wasn’t recorded, and Jones denied the allegations. Subsequently, Jones was cleared of misconduct, and the complaint was dismissed, according to a 2017 Texas Tribune article entitled “What Does Discrimination Look Like To Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones?”
The article recapping the 2013 complaint was about Jones’ denial that Texas passed Voter ID with racist intent.
“Despite repeat rulings that Texas passed voter ID with racist intent, judge tells opponents from the bench, “You have nothing.”
Fast-forward to August 1, 2024, and here is Judge Jones again with a ruling that different minority groups can’t join in a class action lawsuit to claim voter dilution in redistricting cases where they challenged maps drawn by the county commission in Galveston, Texas, the Independence/AP reports.
A federal district judge initially rejected the maps, saying they diluted minority strength. A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially upheld the decision before the full Court reconsidered the issue, resulting in a 12-6 decision that reversed a 1988 ruling made by the 5th Circuit regarding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Enter Judge Edith Jones, writing for the majority, saying such challenges by minority coalitions “do not comport” with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and are not supported by Supreme Court precedent. The decision reverses a 1988 5th Circuit decision and will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.
“Nowhere does Section 2 indicate that two minority groups may combine forces to pursue a vote dilution claim. On the contrary, the statute identifies the subject of a vote dilution claim as ‘a class,’ in the singular, not the plural.”
According to reporter Kevin McGill, Jones was joined on the Court by 11 other Republican presidential nominees. Five members nominated by Democratic presidents and one nominee of a Republican president dissented. The 5th Circuit reviews cases from federal district courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
“Today, the majority finally dismantled the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act in this circuit, leaving four decades of en banc precedent flattened in its wake,” dissented Judge Dana Douglas, President Joe Biden’s nominee.
There is something wrong with a judicial system where partisanship rules. Can we be far from an authoritarian government with state-owned media and courts? This is a slippery slope we can’t ignore.
This article originally published in the August 12, 2024 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.
