A Supreme Court on the brink
A
New York Times editorial published Friday, July 3.
In
some ways, the Supreme Court term that just ended seems muddled:
disturbing, highly conservative rulings on subjects like voting
rights and gun control, along with important defenses of basic
liberties in other areas, including the rights of detainees at
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The key to understanding the term lies
in the fragility of the court’s center. Some of the most important
decisions came on 5-to-4 votes — a stark reminder that the court is
just one justice away from solidifying a far-right majority that
would do great damage to the Constitution and the rights of ordinary
Americans.
The
Supreme Court abandoned its special role in protecting voting rights
when it rejected a challenge to Indiana’s harshly anti-democratic
voter ID law. Critics warned that the law, which bars anyone without
a government-issued photo ID from voting, would disenfranchise poor
people, minorities and the elderly, all of whom disproportionately
lack drivers’ licenses. The critics were right. In the Indiana
presidential primary, shortly after the ruling, about 12 nuns in
their 80s and 90s were turned away at the polls for not having
acceptable ID.
In
another sharp break with its traditions, the court struck down parts
of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. After seven decades
of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied
to raising a militia, the court reversed itself and ruled that it
confers on individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for
personal use. The decision will no doubt add significantly to the
number of Americans killed by gun violence.
Corporations
fared especially well in this term. The court reduced the
punitive-damages award against Exxon Mobil for the 1989 Exxon Valdez
oil spill from $2.5 billion to about $500 million, a pittance for the
energy company. In the process, the court declared that in maritime
cases, punitive damages should not exceed the actual damages in a
case. It is a rule that foils the purposes of punitive damages: to
punish and to deter bad conduct.
In
the term’s most cold-hearted decision, the court endorsed
Kentucky’s use of lethal injection to execute prisoners. Despite
evidence that the procedure that Kentucky uses can cause excruciating
pain, the court ruled that it does not violate the Eighth Amendment
prohibition on cruel-and-unusual punishment. It was a squandered
chance to set rules requiring that executions be carried out as
humanely as possible.
There
was some undeniable good news. The court came through with a
critically important decision in favor of the detainees being held in
Guantánamo Bay. It ruled that they have habeas corpus rights:
the right to challenge their confinement before a federal judge. The
decision was the court’s third rebuke to the Bush administration on
Guantánamo and a major win for the Constitution and the rule
of law.
In
a second capital punishment case, the court ruled that the death
penalty cannot be imposed for the rape of a child. Horrific as that
crime is, the court wisely drew a clear line and said that capital
punishment can only be imposed for crimes in which the victim’s
life was taken.
The
court also issued several welcome rulings in favor of workers,
including employees who charged that they were retaliated against for
accusing their employers of discrimination. It was a reversal from
last year, when the court issued a much-criticized ruling against a
woman who was discriminated against in pay, baselessly deciding that
she had filed her complaint too late.
In
placing these rulings in the larger context of the court after two
appointments by President Bush — Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justice Samuel Alito, both dedicated members of the conservative
movement — it is important to note that the Guantánamo
decision was 5 to 4. Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing justice,
cast the deciding vote. In other cases, like the gun-control
decision, the rulings might have been more sweeping and more damaging
if the conservative bloc had not needed the moderate-conservative
Justice Kennedy’s vote to form a majority. One more conservative
appointment would shift the balance to the far-right bloc.
If
that happens, the court can be expected to push even further in a
dangerous direction. It would most likely begin stripping away civil
liberties, like the habeas rights vindicated in the Guantánamo
case. The constitutional protection of women’s reproductive rights
could be eliminated. The court might well strike down laws that
protect the environment, workers’ rights and the rights of racial
and religious minorities.
The
court was teetering on the brink in this term. Voters should keep
that firmly in mind when they go to the polls in November.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/opinion/03thu1.html?ref=opinion
