I noticed this in an email from the New York Times this morning:
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court rejected race-conscious affirmative action at colleges and universities, declaring that admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful and sharply curtailing a policy that had long been a pillar of higher education.
They added:
Effects: Student populations of elite institutions are all but certain to become whiter and more Asian and less Black and Latino. The decision could complicate diversity efforts elsewhere, narrowing the pipeline of highly credentialed minority candidates and making it harder for employers to consider race in hiring.
This is quite frightening, and the obvious consequence of Trump having been able to appoint so many Supreme Court Judges.
Democracy is being undermined in the US by judges intent on promoting policy that looks to promote division in society.
Yesterday, judges here in the UK ruled against the government on its policy to send refugees to Rwanda.
We should value the freedom our judiciary still have whilst they enjoy it. We can be quite sure that there are those who would wish to curtail it or pack the courts with their cronies.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Shocking and perverse.
You’d think eugenics was a thing of the past wouldn’t you?
We seem to have all the hallmarks of self-destruction as a species don’t we? All the markers seem to be there.
Picking up on the points in your final sentence: “We should value the freedom our judiciary still have whilst they enjoy it…..etc” I’d suggest, given the article by Monbiot in the G’ yesterday, our freedoms and those of the Uk’s judiciary are evaporating before out eyes (the Rwanda ruling is a small bright spot):
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/29/punishment-without-trial-britain-civil-injunctions-climate-activists
The article aso mentions the cost of justice – which is mostly only affordable by those with deep pockets. In the case of the USA: Malcom X: “if you want me to be a diner, you have to let me dine” applies as much now as it did in the 1960s. Affirmative action was a brightish spot. Now, not. If I had a magic wand, I would apply Rawls to those supreme court judges and have them transported to a black slum and turned into a black person all the time whilst knowing that in a past life they were judges. As badger would say “that’ll learn em'”.
When the welfare state was founded, equal access to justice was one of its pillars. That didn’t last long. Obviously, anyone accused of a crime must be guilty and so doesn’t deserve to receive the hard-earned money of the tax payer to help his or her defence. The public view of justice is abysmally primitive.
I regret to say that find large numbers of my fellow humans abysmally primitive. Perhaps I am too, but there seems to be total lack of questioning of anyone with wealth and power and their motives.
A persuasive account of the success of the Mont Pelerin Society in promoting Neoliberalism, was in targeting not economics directly, but targeting the Ivy League Law Schools and redirecting the ideology of the leading lawyers of the future.
The idea that ideas will triumph through an open contested debate of the facts is an illusion.
Agreed
The Republicans refused to consider Obama’s nomination in his final year, saying it was too close to an election-despite precedent. So it was deferred.
Trump, through chance nominated three Justices. So a President elected by a minority of the popular vote, nominates with, I think, two not being supported by the American bar association, who are then confirmed by the Senate where the Republicans had a majority (including the Vice-President ) but who represented some 40 million fewer people than the Democrat Senators because many represented small rural states.
They were nominated to impose an agenda which polls had consistently, over a long time, shown to be rejected by the majority of the population.
IMHO the Constitution does not meet the needs of the 21st century.
Completely agree that we must protect what is left of our democratic processes.
I made this comment yesterday after hearing the news about the parliamentary committee’s damning report into the behaviour of Johnson’s supporters, and the upheld appeal against the egregious Rwanda plans.
“We can probably take some comfort today that our creaking democratic processes are still functioning as they were intended. We should not be complacent though, because the efforts to undermine the parliamentary committee were strenuous, and could conceivably succeeded if Johnson had been able to stack the committee with supporters.
Hopefully our legal system is not open to the same kind of political interference as the US Supreme Court, and we can continue to rely on its probity.
However, as many have pointed out, our constitutional arrangements are based on an expectation that people will behave honourably, and respectfully.
The Tories, and their right wing enablers, have done all they can to undermine this fragile aspect of our society, and have allowed dishonourable and disrespectful behaviour to go unpunished. Indeed, they have celebrated it, with their promotion of disgraced former Prime Minister Johnson.
See also “Lord” Cruddas today, doubling down on his kangaroo court allegations.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, said a wise French man. He was right.”
Well worth watching this 12 minute segment from Ari Melber on MSNBC on this, Richard. He really lays out the implications of this ruling, but also the contradictions in the ruling. Not that that matters, of course, as the relentless pursuit of the right wing project is much more important than that.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber
Thanks
Meanwhile back in the UK the Labour Party has turned fascist!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/30/compass-chief-says-labour-has-expelled-him-and-attacks-party-tyranny
And if you don’t like that word try McCarthyite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
I know Neil
He did not deserve this
Clive Lewis will be next
Indeed Clive Lewis understands MMT so bound to be heading for the chop! What a dumbed down country that so many voters think that Starmer will be so much better for the well-being of the country than the current bunch of rascals in power! May as well just spin a roulette wheel to select a leader given the lack of awareness amongst the electorate!
Neil Lawson’s article in the Guardian makes a point I have often mentioned. Much of the 1945 Labour manifesto drew on the thoughts of two Liberals -Beveridge and Keynes. It was also a socialist manifesto with a program of nationalisation. He is in trouble for proposing closer relationships with other parties on the left. I think it is necessary even if Labour win a landslide.
In South Devon (which always returns a Conservative ; at present with about 40% of the vote ) people from the Lib Dems, Labour and Greens have decided to take things into their own hands and see if hey can present a common candidate.
It would work everywhere as in many seats there is a clear challenger but even so.
https://www.southdevonprimary.org/?fbclid=IwAR0PTdQOJmoIJc60T9go1pWYajXbHewfAutUMwdGyht7k4KmJTDjOHe-S_U
I’ve always been uncomfortable with the concept of ‘Affirmative action’, as I always think that the most worthy or capable should be getting the placements/jobs/etc based on their personal character and abilities.
However, although it makes me uncomfortable, I have to admit that ‘Affirmative action’ is probably the least bad option to attempt to reduce the inequalities relating to race, poverty and so forth. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where we didn’t have to deal with all this illogical nonsense? The public schools would close down practically overnight if the kids of the wealthy weren’t guaranteed to get a leg-up from their parents’ expense. Just imagine a world where Old Etonians (and their ilk) weren’t running the government, the major institutions, the banks, the charities, the media etc, etc…
We can but dream.
It is not the only ruling effecting the rights of minorities in the USA made last week. The Court has also made a ruling which will allow shops and businesses to display signs denying service to any group. The ruling is based on a case of a web designer who doesn’t want to design for companies offering same sex marriage.
The ruling could allow businesses to deny service to members of LGBT+ community, or members of different races, or people of different religious beliefs.
Another ruling based on the 6-3 right wing split on the Court.
Supreme court deals blow to rights of LGBTQ+ people
I saw that
Shocking
If this link works, it give goes to a NYT article showing the key rulings made by the Supreme Court this year.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/07/us/major-supreme-court-cases-2023.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare