SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nancy mace
With South Carolina Ruling, Alito May as Well Fly a Confederate Flag
Forget what's been flown over his homes, look at the decision he wrote before the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
May 25, 2024
Only a few days after Samuel Alito was revealed to have flown pro-coup flags over his two homes, he authored an opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court which makes it all but impossible to challenge racial gerrymandering. According to Alito, state legislatures are presumed to be “acting in good faith” when they move thousands of black voters out of a voting district to ensure more Republican representation.
In the old Jim Crow days, Southern states used violent intimidation and techniques like poll taxes, literacy tests, and even lynching to deny black people the vote. Today, following Alito’s opinion, they can simply gerrymander black voters so their votes just don’t matter. Alito goes a long way towards rendering the post-civil war 13th, 14th, and 15th Reconstruction Amendments, as well as the Civil Rights laws of the 1960’s, null and void.
Alito and his Republican colleagues are effectively overturning not only the Reconstruction Amendments but the purpose of the Civil War, as articulated by President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address
I’m reluctant to use bombastic rhetoric to comment on the Supreme Court, but it’s not a stretch to say that Alito’s opinion (joined by the five other Republican members of the Court) constitutes White Supremacy. AsThe Wall Street Journal headline about the case proclaims, “High Court Restores White Majority Distrcit.” As columnist Elie Mystal points out in The Nation, it’s appropriate that Alito hang pro-'Stop the Steal' flags since he considers only white votes legitimate and Trump won a majority of white voters.
In the instant case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Republican-controlled legislature moved about 30,000 black voters (who voted 90% Democratic in 2020) out of Charleston’s First District, to insure the election of conservative white Republican Nancy Mace to Congress. The Federal District Court had made the factual and legal determination that this was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Alito’s opinion restored the Republicans’ gerrymander, overturning the lower court’s factual finding and declaring that that the plaintiffs had not proven that this was a racial gerrymander (still theoretically illegal) and not a partisan political gerrymander, which the decision declared to be perfectly constitutional.
Alito’s opinion was pernicious for two reasons: First, it expanded the right of state legislatures to intentionally gerrymander their voting districts to ensure that the majority party in the state legislature could pick their own voters. Under SCOTUS’s wrongly decided 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Clause, the Court's then five-Justice Republican majority held that while partisan gerrymandering may be unconstitutional, there are no standards by which Federal Courts may determine whether or not a gerrymander is partisan and therefore Federal Courts lack jurisdiction to rule on partisan gerrymandering. SCOTUS still left open the possibility of Federal Courts finding that unconstitutional racial gerrymandering had occurred, which the lower found to have happened.
Alito’s Alexander opinion greatly expanded Rucho. Rather than just saying that partisan gerrymandering cases are non-judiciable in Federal Courts, it affirmatively finds partisan gerrymandering to be fully constitutional, writing at the very beginning of his opinion that “as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, a legislature may pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting.”
Now, per Alito and his five other Republican colleagues, a state legislature may openly proclaim that the purpose of its gerrymandering is to ensure that its majority party (usually Republicans) maintains control. Partisan gerrymandering is now overtly blessed by Alito and his Republican colleagues.
Second, while Alito’s opinion still acknowledges racial gerrymandering may be illegal, he sets such a high new legal bar to proving it that, in real life, challenges to racial gerrymandering will almost always fail.
Alito makes the absurd claim that when redistricting to pick their own voters, state legislatures must be presumed to be acting “in good faith.” According to Alito and his fellow Republican justices, “When a federal court finds that race drove a legislature’s districting decisions, it is declaring that the legislature engaged in ‘offensive and demeaning conduct,’’’ adding “we should not be quick to hurl such accusations at the political branches.” God forbid.
Making claims of racial gerrymandering virtually impossible to prove wasn’t good enough for Clarence Thomas. He wrote a concurring opinion that racial gerrymandering is perfectly legal and even questioned the Supreme Court’s historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision which legally banned school segregation.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called Alito’s opinion “upside-down.” It eviscerates the post-civil war 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, handling “Equal Protection,” for example, as though it were effectively designed to protect white people against discrimination by blacks and other minorities. No wonder that an upside down American flag hung over Alito’s home.
Even if one accepts the conservative majority’s embrace of “originalism” as the sole method of interpreting the Constitution, they look only to the original intent of the founders who wrote slavery into the original Constitution and not to the original intent of the Reconstruction Amendments, which are also part of the Constitution, which were clearly intended to protect the rights of black former slaves from discrimination. Now, it seems, Alito and his colleagues view original intent as protecting whites from discrimination by blacks.
As The Atlantic’s Adam Server tweeted, “I hope people understand that what we are seeing is the systematic destruction of the civil war amendments by the Supreme Court, which are what made America an actual democracy and upon which all minority rights in the United States rely.”
Alito and his Republican colleagues are effectively overturning not only the Reconstruction Amendments but the purpose of the Civil War, as articulated by President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”
If the Republican majority Supreme Court continues down this path, such a nation, “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” shall not long endure.Keep ReadingShow Less
'Justice Is Delayed' as Judges OK Rigged South Carolina Map for Elections
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice and nobody seems to care," said one Democratic congressional candidate from the affected district.
Mar 28, 2024
Voting rights defenders on Thursday decried a federal panel's
decision to let South Carolina use a congressional map the three judges found to be racially gerrymandered in this year's primary and general elections due to the U.S. Supreme Court's delayed resolution of the case.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Columbia ruled last August that "race was the predominant motivating factor" in the Republican-controlled state Legislature's design of the 1st Congressional District "and that traditional districting principles subordinated to race."
Their ruling, which ordered the redrawing of the map, noted that "Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district."
"Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election."
In their new decision, the judges acknowledged the awkward predicament of ordering the use of an unconstitutional map.
"But with the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending, and no remedial plan in place, the ideal must bend to the practical," they asserted.
Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said: "Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election. We will not stand idly by as the rights of thousands of South Carolinians continue to be overlooked."
"The court's ruling today, further delaying these proceedings, continues to tip the scale of justice during a crucial moment in our democracy in an undemocratic attempt to sway the outcome of the upcoming election," Murphy added. "We must strive for a system where every voice is heard and every vote counts, free from the stain of discrimination."
Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, which was filed in 2021 by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and voter Taiwan Scott. They are represented by the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the ACLU of South Carolina, Boroughs Bryant LLC, Arnold & Porter, and the General Counsel's Office of the NAACP.
As Democracy Docket noted Thursday: "The parties asked the Supreme Court for a decision by January 1, 2024. Nearly three months later, the court still hasn't ruled on the case, creating a dire situation for congressional candidates as the candidate filing period started on March 16 and will end on Monday."
Joshua Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law, said on social media that "someone should write an article about the number of times jurisdictions have been allowed to use an illegal map because there's 'not enough time' to create a fair, legal one."
Douglas noted states where this has occurred, including Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, North Carolina, "and now South Carolina."
South Carolina primary voters will head to the polls on June 11.
The 1st Congressional District is represented by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, a Republican. On Thursday, she toldThe Post and Courier that the judges' ruling "makes sense."
"It's only fair candidates know what the lines are," Mace said. "For us, I just want to know what constituents I'm serving."
Michael B. Moore, a Democrat running for the seat, called the decision "regrettable."
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice," he said, "and nobody seems to care."
Keep ReadingShow Less
9/11 Families Horrified by PGA-LIV Golf Saudi 'Sportswashing' Deal
"PGA Tour leaders should be ashamed of their hypocrisy and greed."
Jun 06, 2023
Relatives of people killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and 9/11 survivors said Tuesday that they are "shocked and deeply offended" by a newly announced merger between the PGA Tour and the Saudi-backed LIV Golf circuit, a deal widely condemned as "sportswashing" one of the world's worst human rights violators.
In an agreement that will end years of acrimony and litigation, PGA Tour, DP World Tour, and the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF)—which owns LIV Golf—surprised the world of golf and beyond by announcing Tuesday that they are merging into "a new, collectively owned, for-profit entity."
"Our entire 9/11 community has been betrayed by Commissioner Monahan and the PGA."
PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan—who last year asked players considering leaving for LIV Golf if they've "ever had to apologize for being a member of the PGA Tour"—toldCNBC on Tuesday that he's now "recognized that together, we can have a far greater impact on this game than we can working apart."
Human rights advocates excoriated Monahan and the deal. Terry Strada, who chairs the 9/11 Families United coalition and whose husband Tom died in the attack on the World Trade Center, said in a statement that "Monahan co-opted the 9/11 community last year in the PGA's unequivocal agreement that the Saudi LIV project was nothing more than sportswashing of Saudi Arabia's reputation."
\u201cJay Monahan changed his tune considerably after telling the media and players his concerns with the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour. \n\nPart 1 \ud83d\udc47\u201d— Awful Announcing (@Awful Announcing) 1686093488
"But now the PGA and Monahan appear to have become just more paid Saudi shills, taking billions of dollars to cleanse the Saudi reputation so that Americans and the world will forget how the kingdom spent their billions of dollars before 9/11 to fund terrorism, spread their vitriolic hatred of Americans, and finance al-Qaeda and the murder of our loved ones," Strada continued. "Make no mistake—we will never forget."
"Mr. Monahan talked last summer about knowing people who lost loved ones on 9/11, then wondered aloud on national television whether LIV golfers ever had to apologize for being a member of the PGA Tour," Strada added. "They do now—as does he. PGA Tour leaders should be ashamed of their hypocrisy and greed. Our entire 9/11 community has been betrayed by Commissioner Monahan and the PGA as it appears their concern for our loved ones was merely window-dressing in their quest for money—it was never to honor the great game of golf."
\u201cNothing is more American than the PGA vilifying golfers who took hundreds of millions of dollars to play for an immoral, murderous undemocratic, anti-American regime...\n\nThen partnering with that immoral, undemocratic, anti-American murderous regime.\n\nhttps://t.co/NBIrZbCKxb\u201d— Michael Harriot (@Michael Harriot) 1686065123
Some members of U.S. Congress—a body that responded to 9/11 by voting overwhelmingly to authorize an open-ended war that experts say has claimed millions of lives—welcomed the PGA-LIV Golf merger, among them Reps. Jim Clyburn (D) and Nancy Mace (R), both of South Carolina.
"Obviously Saudi money being involved... you know, I'd have some concerns over that," Mace, who chairs the Congressional Golf Caucus, toldHuffPost. "But look at my district—we've got over 30 golf courses."
Former President Donald Trump—whose golf courses have hosted LIV Golf events—called the deal "big, beautiful, and glamorous" for the sport.
Other lawmakers—mostly Democrats—condemned the merger.
\u201cA merger of this size & weight deserved a vote from the PGA Tour Players -- another reason why player unions matter. \u00a0Golf is one of the only major professional sports leagues in the US without one.\u201d— Ro Khanna (@Ro Khanna) 1686070295
"Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe this brazen, shameless cash grab," Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tweeted. "I'm going to dive into every piece of Saudi Arabia's deal with the PGA. U.S. officials need to consider whether a deal will give the Saudi regime inappropriate control or access to U.S. real estate."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) accused the PGA Tour of paying "lip service" to uplifting the game of golf, which will be used "unabashedly by [Saudi Arabia] to distract from its many crimes."
\u201cSo weird. PGA officials were in my office just months ago talking about how the Saudis' human rights record should disqualify them from having a stake in a major American sport.\n\nI guess maybe their concerns weren't really about human rights?\u201d— Chris Murphy \ud83d\udfe7 (@Chris Murphy \ud83d\udfe7) 1686066929
Ruled for generations by the House of Saud under Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam, Saudi Arabia perennially scores near the bottom of most international human rights indices. Women, religious and sexual minorities, and political dissidents are especially repressed. "Crimes" including apostasy—renouncing Islam—blasphemy, witchcraft, prostitution, and even adultery are punishable by death, often by public beheading.
Abroad, Saudi Arabia leads a U.S.-backed coalition intervening in Yemen's civil war, in which nearly 400,000 people have been killed. Despite pledging to make Saudi Arabia a "pariah" during his 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. President Joe Biden has, like his predecessors going back to the first half of the 20th century, continued friendly and highly lucrative relations with the monarchy.
\u201c\u201c[Saudis] are scary motherf-ckers to get involved with. We know they killed [Jamal] Khashoggi and have a horrible record on human rights. They execute people over there for being gay.\u201d - Phil Mickelson. Within a day, he apologized to the Saudi Royal Family for these comments.\u201d— Dave Zirin (@Dave Zirin) 1686081241
According to U.S. intelligence agencies, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the 2018 kidnapping and brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist with permanent U.S. residency. Biden angered many human rights advocates by moving to protect the crown prince from accountability.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is currently in Saudi Arabia, where he met with bin Salman in Jeddah Tuesday. Blinken said the pair "discussed deepening economic cooperation, especially in the clean energy and technology fields," while emphasizing that "our bilateral relationship is strengthened by progress on human rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular