Yes, the Supreme Court found parts of DOMA unconstitutional...this means that if a state recognizes Marriage Equality, the United States will also, allowing gay partners both the burdens and benefits of marriage(income tax, inheritance, property, social security/Medicare, insurance benefits, etc.), but this is only in 13 states. SCOTUS did not find the whole law unconstitutional which means that if a couple are married in Iowa, but move to Indiana due to job or other circumstances, they lose their rights...which is completely against the Constitution's direction of equal liberty which is protected by the Fifth Amendment. But you'd never know that, watching the corporate media. First, let me be very clear. I am happy that SCOTUS did this much, that gay couples receive the same benefits as my husband and I do and I also believe that SCOTUS should have thrown out the whole law and made it clear that if I get married in IL, that marriage should be recognized in IN, whether its between consenting opposite genders or the same gender. Some figures I've thrown together...using the stat that gays are approximately 9-10% of the populace and that 13 states honor marriage equality, that roughly comes to about one quarter of the country, then that drops the actual "equality" of being able to see your loved one in the hospital to only 2-3% of gay couples....and that's not very equal...or even moral.
BUT I also believe that Roberts left this for last so he'd have cover for some of the other very corporate/racist...yes even on the brink of fascist decisions coming out of this court.
So, what am I basing this statement on? Read on:
First the Voting Rights Act demolition. Please remember that this law was reaffirmed in 2006 under George Bush overwhelmingly(98-0 in Senate, over 400 ayes in the House) and kept the more stringent sights of the DOJ on 9 states that have been known for their inability to play fair consistently(Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia). The Act was written(in 1965), to address the entrenched racial discrimination in voting rights across the country and banned any "standard, practice or procedure" that resulted "in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color", and although this part applies nationwide, Section 4 addressed only parts of the country, those states that required literacy "tests" or other discriminating requirements to be able to register to vote. Section 5 states that voting procedures cannot take place unless the DOJ approves these changes. This part of the law was to expire in 5 years, but has been reauthorized several times, always with a large majority of congress backing the extension.
Now, the Roberts court comes to a decision that POOF! its unconstitutional. And think the Congress should rewrite Section 4...yes, this congress, the one that's voted to overturn ObamaCare 38 times, voted to take away reproductive choices and other rights of women over 300 times and not one vote on jobs/economy/etc. They want the republicon controlled do nothing but whine congress to fix the Voting Acts Rights. And I do agree that this should be fixed, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana(all under teabaggercon control) have done the same shit as Texas, Mississippi and Alabama, but I truly doubt our ability to fix it at this time...so, The People lose. Oh..and of the 9 states that are involved, 6 of them already have legislation in the works to radically limit people's ability to vote. Racists 1, We the People 0.
Speaking of racists, there are 2 other decisions that go for racists/bigots: VANCE v. BALL STATE UNIVERSITY is dealing with workplace harassment of a black woman by a white woman, who did have a higher job title, but was not her supervisor. Now, I'm not very sure about the validity of the case, it seemed that there was a personality issue between the two women, rather than overt racism(although the white woman could have known how far to take it without calling the other woman names), but the court ruled that as long as an employer did something about the harassment(as in tell one to play nice, I guess), and as long as the harasser could not hire/fire the person that was being harassed, it wasn't really an issue...again, looking at this case, I don't think it warranted a Supreme Court Decision, but then taking a "bad" case just to affirm less workplace remedies for employees wouldn't be below the Roberts court. Bigots/Corporations 2/1, We The People 0.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER v. NASSAR Again, we have discrimination, this time religious and national origin. The plaintiff, Dr. Nassar(hired in 1995) alleges that he was a victim of harassment by a supervisor(although not his immediate supervisor), Dr. Levine(hired in 2004). He being Arab and Muslim, she being Jewish and...Jewish; Dr. Levine going so far as to say, "Middle Easterners are lazy" and other blatantly bigoted comments. Dr. Nassar went to the head of the department, Dr. Fisk< and reported this and, in the end, negotiated a settlement that he would only work in the hospital, he would not teach classes(which is where Dr.Levine had the most control). Dr. Fisk decided that Dr. Nassar had aired his grievances too publicly and had hurt Dr. Levine's reputation and forced the hospital to refuse to hire Dr. Nassar. Now, Dr. Nassar won his suit in the lower courts, but SCOTUS again decided in favor of discrimination because, although they did not disagree that Dr. Levine was, in fact, a bigot and causing a hostile work environment, she had nothing to do with him losing the hospital job. Bigots/Corporations 3/2, We the People 0.
Also, FISHER V. U of T-AUSTIN: Ms. Fisher was not selected for placement at UT-Austin and decided it was because of race, not other facts such as that she did not score as high on placement. In Texas, public colleges allow the top 10% of all high schools placement. In the year that Fisher applied, there were over 29,000 applicants for under 8000 seats. Texas' placement procedure is 2 pronged, first the top 10% of all high schools, a holistic metric of the individual student which includes grades, leadership and work experience, extracurricular activity, adversity the student has come through and, since 2004, race is included in this metric. This is what Ms. Fisher attacked; she did not measure up in grades(and within this criteria, she not only placed under 10% in her school, but many of the minority high school applicants).
Now, being fair, Texas' demographics in 2010 census showed that its population broke down, racially, as such: 45% white, 37% Hispanic, 12% African American. The University's population? 77% White, 17% Hispanic and 4.5% African American...Hmm, doesn't seem so bad for white folks, eh?
So, Ms. Fisher goes through the 2 lower courts and is denied by both courts, saying that the school did not base solely on race, the school's were doing the right thing. SCOTUS? Well, they did not affirm Ms. Fisher's claim, just decided that the lower courts did not scrutinize this race business well enough and threw it back to the Appeals court, where, it can be decided in the same manner and go back up to SCOTUS or the Appeals court can decide the way SCOTUS wants them to...and, no I didn't read Thomas' dissent...AKA a waste of paper. Bigots 4, We The People 0.
And let's not forget about drugs, no the real drug problem in America is MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL CO. v. BARTLETT involving generic drugs, you know the ones that all insurance companies require or you pay extra? Well, the "extra" for formulary just may have gotten cheaper, if you value your life. In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that generic drugs do not have to make the buyer beware of side effects if the side effects were discovered after the drug has entered into the generic market. So, we consumers must not only read all of the crap inside the box, but then go to the original medications website and check that? And that's good legal reasoning???? Corporations 3, We the People 0.
So, all in all, you can get married in 13 states if you are gay, but you can still be discriminated against in all 50 for being gay, female, of different color, of different religious preference and SCOTUS has limited those remedies...and if you end up getting ill from all of this crap? Don't take generic medication cuz SCOTUS decided that generics have the right to kill or maim you without discretion....lovely....
When the fuck is Alito and Scalia retiring?????
No comments:
Post a Comment