Back in April when the Supreme Court issued yet another ruling relaxing restrictions on campaign financing in McCutcheon v. FEC, many people were...shall we say...displeased with the justifications for the ruling as presented by Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts made a number of statements that came across as shockingly uninformed to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of our political system.
For instance, in discussing the potential for increasing amounts of money in politics to create unfair class divisions in terms of political power, Roberts stated that "the possibility that an individual who spends large sums of money may garner 'influence over or even access to' elected officials or political parties," was not something that should be the concern of the federal government. And why does Roberts seem to think this is not the job of the federal government? Why, because it would be limiting the freedom of speech of individuals who wish to express themselves monetarily, of course!
Ok, lets put aside the far from settled debate over whether money should constitute speech for a second. I know, I know, I don't want to put that aside either, but just bear with me! Assume that we accept this idea. The question then obviously becomes, why should freedom of speech automatically take precedent over the right of all citizens to have an equal amount of influence in our political system? Speech trumps equality? Many people, myself included, felt that Roberts ought to explain why he apparently felt this was an easy decision to make.
Unfortunately, what we were given (instead of a thoughtful argument - which I am perfectly willing to concede may be possible to make) was Roberts' disbelief in the very idea that denying the government the ability to regulate certain campaign contributions could possibly result in inequality or political corruption! That is because, according to Roberts and the conservative wing of the court, there cannot possibly be corruption unless their is a quid pro quo exchange, and clearly campaign contributions are not that.
Of course, this is ridiculous on many levels. First of all, many states (and indeed the federal government) have repeatedly ruled that corruption and bribery can be found in instances of undue influence, not just direct, overt exchanges of items of equal value. Perhaps more importantly, it implies that people cannot be corrupted on a personal level (psychologically, emotionally) unless someone blatantly comes out and says to them "I want to buy your votes!" One would assume that any human being with a sense of self and emotional intelligence, which we would hope the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has, would be able to recognize that people do not usually buckle under the pressure of influence merely because of the possibility of overt monetary rewards. It is a subtle process of wooing people - of convincing them that they are doing the right thing; that by throwing a few votes someone's way they can stay in Congress and continue to "do good;" of befriending them and stroking their ego - that corrupts. Finally, Roberts' statements suggest he thinks that US politicians are too good to be corrupted by campaign contributions.
Unable to understand how someone could rise to the position of Chief Justice and yet be unable to grasp these basic ideas prompted Bill Maher to (notoriously) state about Roberts that "either he is a liar or he is too naive to hold any important job including, and especially, this one." Other rulings seem to support Maher's idea. Who can forget the ridiculous justification for the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act? Apparently the South has changed! Racism is no longer a major problem! In fact, the larger concern is that the equal rights of Southern states are being violated by demanding that they ask for permission to change their voting laws,when other states do not have to. Considering that those same states immediately moved to enact prejudicial Voter ID laws mere hours after the decision was handed down, one wonders what world Roberts is living in!
Which brings us to the most recent Supreme Court decision to send shock waves through the social justice and civil rights communities - McCullen v. Coakley. In McCullen, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters (oh excuse me, I mean, "advisers") were being violated by a law in Massachusetts that restricted protesting to 35 feet outside of clinics providing abortion services. Of course, there are,once again, legitimate arguments to be made for not restricting free speech in any instance of protestation. If that was the position consistently taken by the Roberts Court, well then, whatever your political leanings, you would have to respect it to some degree. However, the Supreme Court has in the past agreed with the idea that speech can and should be limited, including protest speech, particularly if that "speech" devolves into harassment or intimidation. Furthermore, as Rachel Maddow pointed out, it is currently impossible for citizens to protest in front of the Supreme Court! Apparently, in the case of the Court itself, free speech is less important than order.
How is it that the Roberts Court could not see the blatant hypocrisy behind this position? Is it simply that, as Maher stated, the Court is full of idealists or liars? I think it is a little more complicated than that. Lets look at Roberts' justification for the decision in McCullen. According to Roberts, the people whose speech they are protecting here are "petitioners, not protesters," who merely want to have the right to converse compassionately with women about their options. They do not want to shame them, merely to help them! Oh ok! Sorry, I guess all of those posters of dead fetuses and the cries of "slut" and "murderer" hurled at women as they walked into Planned Parenthood had me confused....
On the surface, this would, again, appear to support the notion that Roberts is simple naive. That he lives in a happy little utopian America in his head. One where anti-abortion activists are all sweet, helpful old ladies, women seeking out abortions are doing so only because they do not know they have other choices, Southern states have no interest in restricting voting rights, racism is dead, and money in politics does not corrupt! It is a lovely dream - one that clearly has no basis reality for most Americans.
However, and this is the crucial point, for Roberts and many others like him, this is reality. Their reality. This IS the world as they know it.
Quite simply, Roberts is not a liar. Perhaps you would be justified in calling him naive, but that suggests a problem with him personally, and hides the systemic problem that leads to this lack of understanding. That problem is a disconnect between different social and cultural groups within the United States. As has been pointed out recently in a number of academic and media outlets, Americans are increasingly self-segregating. As a result, we have little ability to understand and empathize with the struggles and experiences of people whose lives do not mirror our own.
Anthropologists and other social scientists have struggled for years to push people outside of their comfort zones, and help them see that, just because something someone says does not reflect your personal experiences, does not mean that they are "making it up" or "exaggerating." That struggle must continue. Until a wealthy, powerful, middle aged, white man, like Chief Justice John Roberts, can look past his own experiences and empathize with people whose lives are not as rosy as his (an elderly black man in North Carolina who suddenly cannot vote; a young women with three children and no job, who simply cannot afford to be pregnant yet again), there will be little chance of achieving legal equality in our society.
For instance, in discussing the potential for increasing amounts of money in politics to create unfair class divisions in terms of political power, Roberts stated that "the possibility that an individual who spends large sums of money may garner 'influence over or even access to' elected officials or political parties," was not something that should be the concern of the federal government. And why does Roberts seem to think this is not the job of the federal government? Why, because it would be limiting the freedom of speech of individuals who wish to express themselves monetarily, of course!
Ok, lets put aside the far from settled debate over whether money should constitute speech for a second. I know, I know, I don't want to put that aside either, but just bear with me! Assume that we accept this idea. The question then obviously becomes, why should freedom of speech automatically take precedent over the right of all citizens to have an equal amount of influence in our political system? Speech trumps equality? Many people, myself included, felt that Roberts ought to explain why he apparently felt this was an easy decision to make.
Unfortunately, what we were given (instead of a thoughtful argument - which I am perfectly willing to concede may be possible to make) was Roberts' disbelief in the very idea that denying the government the ability to regulate certain campaign contributions could possibly result in inequality or political corruption! That is because, according to Roberts and the conservative wing of the court, there cannot possibly be corruption unless their is a quid pro quo exchange, and clearly campaign contributions are not that.
 |
| I just...I don't even...ugh. |
Unable to understand how someone could rise to the position of Chief Justice and yet be unable to grasp these basic ideas prompted Bill Maher to (notoriously) state about Roberts that "either he is a liar or he is too naive to hold any important job including, and especially, this one." Other rulings seem to support Maher's idea. Who can forget the ridiculous justification for the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act? Apparently the South has changed! Racism is no longer a major problem! In fact, the larger concern is that the equal rights of Southern states are being violated by demanding that they ask for permission to change their voting laws,when other states do not have to. Considering that those same states immediately moved to enact prejudicial Voter ID laws mere hours after the decision was handed down, one wonders what world Roberts is living in!
 |
| Source: John Cole, CagelCartoons.com |
Which brings us to the most recent Supreme Court decision to send shock waves through the social justice and civil rights communities - McCullen v. Coakley. In McCullen, the Court ruled that the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters (oh excuse me, I mean, "advisers") were being violated by a law in Massachusetts that restricted protesting to 35 feet outside of clinics providing abortion services. Of course, there are,once again, legitimate arguments to be made for not restricting free speech in any instance of protestation. If that was the position consistently taken by the Roberts Court, well then, whatever your political leanings, you would have to respect it to some degree. However, the Supreme Court has in the past agreed with the idea that speech can and should be limited, including protest speech, particularly if that "speech" devolves into harassment or intimidation. Furthermore, as Rachel Maddow pointed out, it is currently impossible for citizens to protest in front of the Supreme Court! Apparently, in the case of the Court itself, free speech is less important than order.
How is it that the Roberts Court could not see the blatant hypocrisy behind this position? Is it simply that, as Maher stated, the Court is full of idealists or liars? I think it is a little more complicated than that. Lets look at Roberts' justification for the decision in McCullen. According to Roberts, the people whose speech they are protecting here are "petitioners, not protesters," who merely want to have the right to converse compassionately with women about their options. They do not want to shame them, merely to help them! Oh ok! Sorry, I guess all of those posters of dead fetuses and the cries of "slut" and "murderer" hurled at women as they walked into Planned Parenthood had me confused....
On the surface, this would, again, appear to support the notion that Roberts is simple naive. That he lives in a happy little utopian America in his head. One where anti-abortion activists are all sweet, helpful old ladies, women seeking out abortions are doing so only because they do not know they have other choices, Southern states have no interest in restricting voting rights, racism is dead, and money in politics does not corrupt! It is a lovely dream - one that clearly has no basis reality for most Americans.
However, and this is the crucial point, for Roberts and many others like him, this is reality. Their reality. This IS the world as they know it.
Quite simply, Roberts is not a liar. Perhaps you would be justified in calling him naive, but that suggests a problem with him personally, and hides the systemic problem that leads to this lack of understanding. That problem is a disconnect between different social and cultural groups within the United States. As has been pointed out recently in a number of academic and media outlets, Americans are increasingly self-segregating. As a result, we have little ability to understand and empathize with the struggles and experiences of people whose lives do not mirror our own.
Anthropologists and other social scientists have struggled for years to push people outside of their comfort zones, and help them see that, just because something someone says does not reflect your personal experiences, does not mean that they are "making it up" or "exaggerating." That struggle must continue. Until a wealthy, powerful, middle aged, white man, like Chief Justice John Roberts, can look past his own experiences and empathize with people whose lives are not as rosy as his (an elderly black man in North Carolina who suddenly cannot vote; a young women with three children and no job, who simply cannot afford to be pregnant yet again), there will be little chance of achieving legal equality in our society.
No comments:
Post a Comment