Expand the court or you get nothing

Lauren Floyd of Daily Kos reported that the Texas Public Policy Foundation wrote in a tweet, since deleted, that there are lots of words and phrases that indicate whether Critical Race Theory (the conservative definition) is being taught in their schools. The list includes: equity, diversity, multicultural, restorative justice, institutional racism, microagressions, white privilege, colonialism, disparate outcomes, ally, Black Lives Matter, and many more. Floyd listed the major donors of the foundation. No surprise that Koch Industries is at the top. I’ll let you read the list. Floyd quoted a tweet by Marc Lamont Hill. The strategy is transparent.

This is the right-wing game plan in a nutshell. Make Critical Race Theory the stand-in for all vocabularies of justice, critique, and liberation. At the same time, create a moral panic around CRT. Undermine our ability to properly assess or resist these moves.

Floyd also quoted tweets by Malaika Jabali who explained what CRT (from the scholar’s view) is and isn’t. I’ve mentioned some of that before. Ed MD tweeted:

-Vaccines are extremely good at preventing severe disease -Vaccines are very good at preventing any symptoms -Vaccines are pretty good at preventing any infection -Vaccines are moderately good at preventing onward transmission

Jody Lanard MD, formerly of the WHO, added:

Re: "...extremely good at preventing severe disease" Amazing that people can be blasé about something so miraculous. I think every day about what a miracle this is. Most of us in rich countries can eventually choose relative "disease immunity," regardless of herd immunity.

Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported in a couple states the Republican controlled legislature is working out how to enact voter suppression while avoiding a Democratic governor’s veto. One state is Pennsylvania where the Legislature is going to try amending the state constitution. This involves approval by two consecutive two-year sessions of the Legislature, then putting the proposal before the voters. With the final result not happening for at least two years and an election in between I am skeptical this would succeed. It certainly won’t help the 2022 election. But I don’t know Pennsylvania politics. I do know Michigan politics, the other state in Eleveld’s story. And this one very well could succeed. There is a provision in the state constitution that if enough signatures (10% of those who last voted for governor, which is not a presidential year) are collected for a proposal, it goes before the legislature. If they approve, it becomes law without the governor’s ability to veto. If the legislature votes no or refuses to take it up, it goes on the ballot for the people to vote on. This provision in the constitution allows citizens to get proposals enacted. That’s good. But I’ve seen this provision abused far more than it has helped. For example: Citizens collected enough signatures to raise the minimum wage. The legislature approved it – then immediately after the election they gutted it. That approval prevented citizens from voting on it. Under the guidance of the legislature there was a campaign in conservative churches to collect signatures for some sort of abortion ban (I don’t remember the details). Once the signatures were collected the legislature enacted the ban and the governor could not veto it and the citizens could not vote on it. And now the legislature is planning to do the same on their voter suppression bills. This didn’t happen with the proposal for a citizens redistricting commission because that was a constitutional amendment, not a simple law. Organizers knew that if it wasn’t an amendment the legislature would overturn it – they knew it because it’s been done. Stephen Wolf of Kos Elections reported:

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservatives ruled 6-3 along ideological lines to strike a historic blow against the Voting Rights Act and overturn a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that had found that two voting laws passed by Arizona Republicans had both the effect and intent of discriminating against Black, Latino, and Native American voters. The ruling reversed the findings of intentional discrimination and will make it much harder to block laws that have a discriminatory effect on voters of color, bringing America one major step closer to reviving the legal regime of Jim Crow. Consequently, the Supreme Court's ruling significantly increased the level of discriminatory effects that must be demonstrated for a voting law or procedure to violate the Voting Rights Act, opening the floodgates to a new national wave of Republican voter suppression laws that hide their racist intent but have clearly disparate effects based on race. ... The appellate court decision relied on Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits laws that have a discriminatory effect against racial minorities regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate. The finding of a discriminatory effect is critical because it's often much more difficult if not impossible to prove that lawmakers acted with illicit intent, whereas statistical analysis can more readily prove that a law has a disparate negative impact on protected racial groups. It's this so-called "effects test" that is the key remaining plank of the Voting Rights Act following the Supreme Court's notorious 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which invalidated a requirement that many jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting laws had to obtain Justice Department approval to make any changes to voting. Some legal observers had warned before this latest decision that even if the effects test weren’t formally struck down, the Supreme Court could make it so difficult to comply with the requirements to prove discrimination that the VRA would nevertheless become meaningless.

Joan McCarter of Kos added:

The burden on 50 Senate Democrats and President Joe Biden to save democracy became much heavier Thursday, and even more urgent. In a 6-3 majority opinion, the Supreme Court gutted what remained of the Voting Rights Act. This was not a shocking outcome. After all, the Supreme Court had already severely damaged the landmark civil rights law back in 2013, when it gave Republican states the green light to start enacting whatever outrageous racist voter suppression laws they wished. Arizona took them up on that offer, giving the court—with three new illegitimate justices appointed by the former insurrectionist in chief—the excuse to destroy the whole of the law. Which means the burden on the Senate goes beyond abolishing the filibuster and overruling the Supreme Court with new laws. A federal judiciary jam-packed with Donald Trump's illegitimate judges—including this Supreme Court—will make sure those laws don’t stand.

McCarter quoted a tweet from Elie Mystal:

Can Democrats read this decision and tell me HOW THE HELL either the For the People Act, the John Lewis Act, or anything else, PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER IN FRONT OF THIS SCOTUS? HOW. HOW??? EXPAND THE COURT OR YOU GET NOTHING.

Leah McElrath tweeted a few threads on this ruling, including a few quotes where appropriate. I didn’t include those quotes, though they lead to more analysis. Thread One:

This part of today’s decision shows how radically regressive the current SCOTUS is: “The mere fact that there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity…” The SCOTUS majority is arguing that the existence of inequality “does not necessarily mean” that the system is unequal. The SCOTUS majority is claiming: inequality ≠ systemic barriers More language from within: “Voting necessarily requires some effort and compliance…” There is a focus by the SCOTUS majority on the behavior of the individual over the structure of the system. ... The right-wing is attacking CRT because the systems as they exist uphold their unequal power—and they don’t want analysis of power dynamics. They seek to shift the focus from systems to individuals, from oppression to behavior. They want us to think of racism as mere bigotry. The perspective in today’s majority SCOTUS decision on voting rights and the recent right-wing fixation on CRT are paving stones on the same road. I see this road as leading to the Civil Rights Act itself being dismantled, which would pave the way to a very frightening future.

Two:

The 2016 presidential election was the first in the aftermath of the 2013 decision. Elections are won at the margins. Rulings that empower states and counties to engage in even marginal increases in voter disenfranchisement can make a disproportionate difference in outcomes. As @rickhasen says “the conservative Supreme Court has taken away all the major available tools for going after voting restrictions…at a time when some Republican states are passing new restrictive voting law.” Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965—within and throughout my lifetime—SCOTUS has served to protect citizens from disenfranchisement by states. That era is now over.

Three:

Andrew Goodman, James Earl Chaney, and Michael Henry Schwerner were murdered in 1964 because they fought for voting rights. The late Representative John Lewis was beaten in 1965 because he fought for voting rights. The sacrifices Goodman, Chaney, Schwerner, Lewis, and many more activists—some known and others unknown—were instrumental in garnering sufficient popular and political support for the eventual passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Much of what we celebrate as the Civil Rights Movement was largely dedicated to achieving the passage of legislation that has been systematically gutted by SCOTUS.

Nina Totenberg, the legal reporter for NPR, explains the situation well, including the (faulty) legal reasoning, though she doesn’t mention the part that without court expansion passing new voting rights legislation won’t make any difference. A few days ago David Roberts tweeted about voter suppression. I saved it for a day when I wrote about voter suppression. With all the laws Republicans are passing I wouldn’t have to wait long. I didn’t know this SCOTUS ruling was on its way.

It's going to be hilarious in 2024 when, on the very first day of the Congressional session, new Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ditches the filibuster & passes a nationwide voter-suppression bill with 50 R votes.

Sigh. I would not call that situation “hilarious.” After that I need something a bit more fun. Joey Nolfi of Entertainment Weekly reported that the streaming service Disney+ will soon have available the show This is Me: Pride Celebration Spectacular. From what I gather the idea was Disney’s! The show features Disney songs through a queer lens and sung by LGBTQ singers. Plus a few drag queen versions of Disney princesses. Nolfi spoke to Nina West, one of the drag queens:

"When you hear 'A Whole New World' sung by two people of the same gender, it's powerful, or when you have someone who identifies as a woman singing a song like 'Kiss the Girl,' that's magic," West exclusively tells EW in a first-look preview of the upcoming concert. "It allows us to see ourselves in these stories."