Archive for

I Don’t Think Sarah Palin Understands What Judges Do…

Per Governor Palin’s ridiculously over-stylized Twitter page:

Vetted judge candidates today from Anch Office, 3 more judges to be announced soon to begin work for AKns interpretting law, not making law

More "teenager on MySpace," and less "politician on Twitter"

Clearly, Palin’s trying to play to that old culture war canard about dangerous “liberal activist judges” making rather than interpreting (“interpretting”?) law. The only thing is, that issue doesn’t really have any bearing on the types of judges she’s appointing. Per her press release, Palin appointed one judge to a state trial court (Fairbanks District Court), and two to state intermediate courts (Fairbanks & Palmer “Superior” Court). Typically, when we talk about judges “making” law, we talk about federal appellate judges (e.g., 2nd Circuit), who, because of the discretionary nature of certiorari review, are often the final word on matters of federal law, and Supreme Court justices, who are always the final word on federal law.

However, the Alaska court system provides for appeals from Superior Court judgments as a matter of right. Accordingly, a Superior Court judge will never have the ability to conclusively “say what the law is,” nor, obviously, would a trial court judge. Conservatives are allowed to worry about “judicial activism,” but the types of appointments she’s made just don’t even present that concern.

So, once more, we’re left with the perception that Sarah Palin is little more than a machine for the generation of talking points. On one point, then, I do agree with her: her departure probably is “best for AK progress.”

How Post-Racial Are We?

To a large extent, the momentous decisions that came out of the Supreme Court’s most recent term raised the question of when, if ever, we as a society should let go of the “strong medicine” we adopted in the ’60s and ’70s to combat the twin evils of overt racism and violent bigotry. Many of these provisions – like the Voting Rights Act, challenged in Holder, and Title VII, challenged in Ricci – pushed the limits of Congress’ power to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments to remedy past discrimination. That was the right decision, then, but maybe it won’t always be. Justice Thomas’ dissent in Holder, in fact, pointedly asked the question many have been thinking: haven’t we fixed racism yet?

But now—more than 40 years later––the violence, intimida­tion, and subterfuge that led Congress to pass §5 and this Court to uphold it no longer remains.  An acknowledgment of §5’s unconstitutionality represents a fulfillment of the Fifteenth Amendment’s promise of full enfranchisement and honors the success achieved by the VRA. Id.

Surely he’s right, that the Voting Rights Act’s greatest triumph would be its factual obsolescence. But are we there yet?

NO. Not when we still hear stories like this:

More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason. [. . .] “There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club,” John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

We as a nation have made significant strides since the civil rights movement. But apparently, for some portions of America, it’s still okay to lock kids out of pools on account of their race (name that Supreme Court case!), or even beat them. Racism has always been an evil that thrives at the fringes of society. That we’ve expunged it nearly completely from the center is something to celebrate, but not cause to let down our guard.

Let us turn our thoughts today to Martin Luther King.