More About the Voting Rights Act and the N Word

Since my blog post, Paula Deen and the Supreme Court, I have been scanning news sources for other comments about the issues I highlighted. One item I was shocked to read in social media on the very day of the Supreme Court ruling was boasting that the Republicans won and that now Blacks are free to vote however they choose, "You jes have to get a voter ID, it will only cost $10.00 and you have three and a half years to get it" was one of the things the Facebook post said.

That brought to mind phrases I heard as a child during the Civil Rights Movement. I heard the grown-ups say, "Those people don't need to be marching and causing trouble just to vote -- all they have to do is pay their poll tax." Of course, that was an easy thing for white folks to say because for them it was just a simple poll tax. They should have also understood that for blacks the poll tax was just one hurdle in a process designed to exclude minorities from voting. In my state it was a process that was put into place by Alabama's Constitution which was written in 1901 to ensure white supremacy.  

I am posting here some of the articles I found particulalry helpful or enlightening.

Some comments about the Supreme Court Decision on Shelby County, Alabama V. Holder concerning the Voting Rights Act

~ From “Gutting the Voting Rights Act” by Bill Blum:

The Shelby County majority opinion is breathtaking, not only for the scope of its judicial activism—Congress had reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years in 2006, with the Senate expressing its endorsement by a vote of 98 to 0—but for its distortion both of the country’s racist past and its racist present.

~ From  “A Radical Act of Judicial Activism” by Gerry Hebert:

In its Shelby County ruling, the Court not only cast aside decades of legal precedents, but it also usurped Congress’s role of enforcing those Amendments “by appropriate legislation.” The Court’s decision in the Shelby County case overrode Congress’ decision that the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act were still needed in the covered jurisdictions, substituting its decision for the considered views of Congress that voting discrimination remains particularly acute in the covered areas. Decisions like Shelby County do great harm to the Court as an institution and the traditional respect for the Bench.

~ From “The Return of Jim Crow,” By Ari Berman

The states of the Old Confederacy will return to the pre-1965 playbook, passing new voting restrictions that can only be challenged, after years of lengthy litigation, in often-hostile Southern courts, with the burden of proof on those subject to discrimination rather than those doing the discriminating. Conservatives will be emboldened to challenge the other parts of the Voting Rights Act, like Section 2, that apply nationwide. Our democracy will become more unequal, with the most powerful interests manipulating the electoral rules to preserve their own power.

~ Robert Reich has an excellent blog post in which he shows how the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder is the latest of many court decisions that have favored the Republican Party at the expense of the people. In “The Republicans of the Supreme Court” he states:

The modern GOP is based on an unlikely coalition of wealthy business executives, small business owners, and struggling whites. Its durability depends on the latter two categories believing that the economic stresses they've experienced for decades have a lot to do with the government taking their money and giving it to the poor, who are disproportionately black and Latino.

The real reason small business owners and struggling whites haven't done better is the same most of the rest of America hasn't done better: Although the output of Americans has continued to rise, almost all the gains have gone to the very top.

~ In The Atlantic Monthly, political writer Molly Ball has a more optimistic view in her article, “No, the Voting Rights Act Is Not Dead” She reflects upon the most recent re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 and says that we don’t have to assume that our gridlocked congress  cannot do the same thing today:

These guys worked together in a bipartisan way only seven years ago. We need to remind people that there are legislators from both parties who care deeply about protecting the right to vote." For civil-rights advocates, the worst outcome would be to give up the fight for a new Voting Rights Act before it's even begun.

And about Paula Deen…

In my blog post, I was writing as a Southerner reflecting upon the “N” word uproar. I read two other responses from Southerners, both African American.

~ In “Confession of a black journalist: Like Paula Deen, I've used the n-word” by Anthony Cook in The Huntsville Times. Mr. Cook states:

As a black man, this writing is my attempt to point out the fake outrage and the hypocrisy of those of us who claim we are somehow damaged by this particular person, Paula Deen, admitting that she used the n-word years ago. If the word is offensive and harmful, why are we not offended and harmed when African-American rappers and comedians use it? Why are we not offended and harmed when neighbors and relatives use it? Why do we not consider that we offend and harm others when we use it?

… I also began to see the hypocrisy of expecting white people to adhere to a standard that I was not upholding myself. Using it culturally is no excuse. That's the same reason Paula Deen used it – because it was culturally accepted at the time among her family and colleagues.

~ Probably the most eloquent response I have read comes from culinary historian and chef, Michael W. Twitty. In his blog post, An Open Letter to Paula Deen he writes,

To be part of the national surprise towards you saying the word “nigger” in the past (I am a cultural and culinary historian and so therefore I am using the word within context…) is at best naïve and at worst, an attempt to hide the pervasiveness of racism, specifically anti-Black racism in certain currents of American culture—not just Southern.  Take for example the completely un-Christian and inhuman rage at Cheerios for their simple and very American ad showing a beautiful biracial girl talking to her white mother and pouring cereal on the chest of her Black father.  That Cheerio’s had to shut down the comments section says that the idea of inter-human relationships outside of one’s color bracket is for many hiding behind a computer screen—a sign of the apocalypse.  So just like those old spaghetti sauce ads, yes, America, racism—“it’s in there” even when we were prefer it not be.

When you said, “of course,” I wasn’t flabbergasted, I was rather, relieved…In fact we Black Southerners have an underground saying, “better the Southern white man than the Northern one, because at least you know where he stands…” but Paula I knew what you meant, and I knew where you were coming from.  I’m not defending that or saying its right—because it’s that word—and the same racist venom that drove my grandparents into the Great Migration almost 70 years ago. I am not in agreement with esteemed journalist Bob Herbert who said “brothers shouldn’t use it either..” I think women have a right to the word “b….” gay men have a right to the word “queer” or “f…” and it’s up to people with oppressive histories to decide when and where the use of certain pejorative terms is appropriate.  Power in language is not a one way street.  Obviously I am not encouraging you to use the word further, but I am not going to hide behind ideals when the realities of our struggles with identity as a nation are clear.  No sound bite can begin to peel back the layers of this issue.

I highly recommend that you read Mr. Twitty’s entire essay which is posted on his blog, Africulinaria. Since I like both food and eloquent writing, I began following his blog when I read it. You can see the entire post here.

*

The Supreme Court Rules on My Blog Posts

Well, actually the Supreme Court ruled this month on two of my blog post topics. I don’t do political commentary every day – not even every week. On those occasions when I have written about political issues, the two most frequent topics have been healthcare reform and immigration.  I am pleased to report that this month the highest court in the land has backed up much of what I have been saying.  Indeed, June has been a very important month in addressing two big issues for our country. 

On Immigration

My blogging on immigration was mainly in response to Alabama’s harsh immigration law. The last time I commented on the Alabama law was on May 9 with “Our Immigration Dilemma. “

When my state refused to repeal or even budge on its Immigration law, even after the protests and the many requests from our citizens,  it became all too clear to me that Alabama will not do what is just and right in this situation unless and until the Federal government intervenes. I should have known this. The same was true with Jim Crow laws, civil rights and integration (but one can always hope that his state will do better).

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona Immigration law, issued on June 25^th, is a sure step toward correcting Alabama's law. As reported in The New York Times, immigration is a matter of federal jurisdiction , not individual states:

The justices make it clear that this case is about the power of the federal government to set immigration policy and to pre-empt, to a large degree, state policies that can infringe on that federal power. An expert on immigration law, Micahel A. Olivas, explained: "We can't have 50 different immigration policies, 50 different foreign policies."

The only part of the Arizona Law that the court tentatively upheld was the section that allows law enforcement to determine immigration status of someone detained for other reasons if there is legitimate suspicion. When this part of the law is enacted, it will likely lead to racial profiling which may then be struck down by the court.

So in short, there is some hope yet for justice. Will congress now embark on serious immigration reform?

On Healthcare

As for healthcare, I have had several posts in regard to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.  As a healthcare worker, I am all too familiar with the failure of our healthcare system to grant access to healthcare for many of our people. I am also acutely aware of how our insurance premiums are driven up by the many people who show up in our emergency rooms without insurance. Hospitals cannot not treat them, and the cost is passed on to those of use with insurance. Many of these uninsured patients cannot afford coverage. Some are unemployed; some have part-time jobs with no insurance benefits. It is all too clear that we need reform that will bring better access to healthcare and reign in the spiraling costs of insurance coverage.  My last blog about healthcare was on April 9th after arguments had been made before the Supreme Court in the case challenging legality of the Affordable Care Act and we knew that a decision would be forthcoming in June. I was obviously concerned at the time when I titled that essay, "Healthcare in the Courts: Checks and Balances or Partisan Gamesmanship?"

Much has already been said in blogs, in print, and on the airwaves about the significance of this landmark Supreme Court ruling in which Chief Justice Roberts sided with (and wrote) the majority opinion to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Ezra Klein has a good commentary about what this ruling will mean for the country by showing how it will affect real people in their day-to-day lives.

Take a deep breath and be not afraid

In both of these important cases that went before the Supreme Court, I am thankful that reason and justice tipped the scales over doctrinaire extremism and partisanship. So much of what we have heard from vocal opponents of "Obamacare" and from loud supporters of Arizona’s immigration law has been a reaction based on fear. The road ahead will not be simple or easy, but we must never let fear be our guide.

*

Healthcare in the Courts: Checks and Balances or Partisan Gamesmanship?

As you no doubt have heard in the news, the legal challenges to Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act have made it to the Supreme Court, arguments have been made, and now we await a decision. The Los Angeles Times carried a story about Reagan administration lawyers fearing judicial activism in the current Supreme Court. Charles Fried, solicitor general under President Reagan, said that “If the court were to invalidate the healthcare law, It would be more problematic than Bush v. Gore." President Obama has even shown some concern stating that "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

So now we wait for the Supreme Court to make its decision on what has come to be known as Obamacare. The question is, will we be witnessing the checks and balances that we heard about in junior high school civics classes, or will it be partisan gamesmanship?

A Case for Single payer Universal Healthcare

During the waning years of the Bush (the younger) administration, I made a prediction that the U.S. would move toward a nationalized healthcare plan and that it would be industry that would push the government to get involved. My reasoning was that in the global economy, it is harder for U.S. companies to compete because they have to include employee healthcare in their production costs, unlike all other industrialized competitors on the global market.  At the time, I think it was estimated that $1,500 of the cost of every new American made automobile went to cover employee health benefits. If the government could free up industry, our companies could do much better in providing quality products in a competitive international market.  Well that just shows how much I know.

Since Barak Obama came into office to promote a more comprehensive healthcare plan, Republicans, the party of big business, have done nothing but block all efforts at healthcare reform.  Years ago my wife came up with an idea that made more sense than any I had heard before. She said that if we allowed all children from birth to age 18 to be covered by Medicare, then we be granting healthcare to the most vulnerable of our population: the children and the elderly.  Adults could be covered by insurance plans just as we are accustomed to doing. In this way, the productive citizens are contributing to their own healthcare plan and the crucial developmental year of infants and children will be covered just as are the elderly.  Of course, that made too much sense to even be contemplated in Washington, D.C.

The truth is, if we had a single payer universal healthcare system, it could be a boon for the economy and a shot in the arm for every entrepreneur.  I personally know of people who would like to launch their own business, but do not want to risk losing healthcare benefits they have in their present job. Indeed, there are many who are working at a job they don’t particularly like just to have insurance coverage.  So not only would big business benefit from not being saddled with healthcare costs, small entrepreneurs would have more freedom to do what the Republicans say this country is all about – start new businesses.

The Individual Mandate

What about that provision in the healthcare reform law that requires an individual mandate – in other words, requiring everyone to buy health insurance? That is the key to making this healthcare act affordable. Currently, everyone gets medical care when they show up at the emergency room regardless of whether or not they have insurance. If they don’t have insurance and are in the ER, they are at one of the most expensive points of healthcare delivery, and that cost is passed on to the hospital and to those of us who have insurance. In the past, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (and many other Republicans) have strongly favored the individual mandate. For many Republicans the individual mandate made sense. It was just good business. If everyone has to buy insurance, then that is more money in the pockets of the insurance companies. The Obama administration considered a public option that would be covered by a tax, but they opted for the individual mandate since it was a Republican idea anyway, and they did not see that a public option along with a new tax would pass in congress. So we ended up with a less effective hybrid bill in order to compromise with those who dislike taxes and government healthcare.

What incredible irony that a tax to cover a public option in healthcare would have been constitutional without question (we are already doing it with Medicare).  The individual mandate, that Republican idea, is now being challenged in the courts (by Republicans bent on overturning “Obamacare”) to determine its constitutionality.

By June, we will know the court’s decision.  Will it be a case of Republican activism in the Supreme Court?  Whatever the outcome, it will likely be a 5-4 decision – not a ringing endorsement in the court, however it turns out. It will be another reflection of the political polarization that is coloring so much of our country's actions and non-actions. If the law is upheld, maybe we can go on to improve healthcare accessibility. If it is struck down, I fear that with political gridlock and lack of congressional gumption we may not see any decent healthcare reform.  All of this argument about whether we can make people buy insurance sounds like a good case for bringing on a universal single-payer plan like other civilized countries have.

*

Snyder v. Phelps at the Supreme Court

I am sure I am letting my emotions get in the way when I ask, "If this is right, why does it feel so wrong?" I wrote last April (Three Cheers for Justice Alito) about a Supreme Court decision that I disagreed with, and talked about how, to my surprise, Justice Samuel Alito cast the one dissenting vote. Now, with the Snyder v. Phelps 8 -1 ruling, once again I am uneasy with the higest court's decision. Yet I also find some small consolation - this time that at least one justice argued that hateful incendiary speech should not find protection under the right to free speech - and once again surprised that my ally is Justice Alito.

I know many legal minds will be able to show how, undesirable as the Westboro Baptist Church's actions are, we must allow it if we are to value freedom of speech. However, I cannot see how showing up at a private funeral with signs that say such things as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates Fags" is in any way appropriate. Furthermore, I do not see what such actions taken at military funerals have to do with the group's hateful protests against the gay community. What about the privacy of the grieving family? What about expectations of public decency during times of public mourning?

I found one blogger who took this occasion to celebrate her surprise at agreeing with Justice Alito (much as I did last April). This writer does a fine job presenting the details of the Supreme Court decision and Alito's dissenting opinion. Check it out on the Reaching for the Moon blog here.

Thursday evening addendum: Today I read The New York Times headline article, "Justices Rule for Protesters at Military Funerals," by Adam Liptak. In the interest of getting the whole story, I recommend it. In the short article, Liptak gives a concise summary of the judicial ruling and covers most of the "whys and wherefores." I think that wisdom lies in knowing both what liberty allows and what is appropriate to implement. Wisdom can take Justice Roberts' and Justice Alito's opinions, hold them together and make a healthy choice of action.

*

Editorial Cartoon

Here's a good one from Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Tom Toles of The Washington Post :