On Monday, I was preparing my blog for the week on affirmative action and the latest Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin; but could barely catch my breath and focus, when the rulings later in the week took me for an emotional roller coaster ride, political junkie style. And then, as did much of the nation on a lazy summer day, I became fascinated with the testimony of Rachel Jeantel in the Zimmerman murder trial in Florida, and its serendipitous juxtaposition to the Paula Deen undoing. And as if that wasn't enough news upon which to feast as a writer, the U.S. Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill. Truly an embarrassment of critical thinking riches. Where to begin?
I intend to post a more in-depth discussion of the Fisher case in my next blog. It's too important of an issue, and the majority's deliberate state of unknowing to huge for just a paragraph or two. But it did start off my week with a great sigh of relief that it was not dismantled all together. That was, of course, until the following day, when the same court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court is even worse than the Rehnquist court in siding with big business, and against Civil Rights; but not nearly as jurisprudentially skillful. Conservatives often complain of the judicial activism of the Earl Warren court, but this decision is beyond anything we saw from the Warren and Rehnquist courts combined.
Judicial activism occurs when a court replaces the law, deliberated and passed by congress, with its own judgment, and with little or no legal precedent. The court suggested that the data used to map the areas that needed preclearance before these certain jurisdictions could alter their voting laws under §4 of the Act was outdated, and reflected a different time in America. However, the Voting Rights Act contains sunset provisions requiring its reauthorization after certain periods of time, the last being in 2006. In that year, a congress led by Republicans in both houses, conducted hearings, heard testimony and reviewed data regarding the status of voting rights for racial minorities, as well as the effects of the Voting Rights Act, prior to overwhelmingly passing its reauthorization. It was then signed into law by a conservative Republican president. And yet, a mere seven years later, Justice Roberts knows better than a duly elected congress, and believes that his judgment and that of four of his colleagues, none of whom showed any sympathy for the lives of people who stood in line for hours just to vote, should be the law instead. And in that seven years, the GOP aggressiveness in voter suppression has gotten far worse than it was in 2006, not better. It's as if these Americans don't really matter, because Chief Justice Roberts declares that racism is over now.
I barely had time to grieve, for the following day this Supreme Court shocked me to silliness with the decisions on DOMA and Prop 8, wherein the court largely decided not to decide. California's Prop 8 was refused a ruling on marriage equality because the court ducked the issue, ruling that the proponents lacking standing, or the right to bring the matter before the court. The appeal was taken up by private pro prop 8ers when Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend it in court on behalf of the State of California. Since the appellants could show no harm done to themselves, they lacked the requisite right to sue. A real dodge for the court.
In striking down DOMA, the court granted federal equal protection to same-sex couples, but did not impose the same upon the states. Which means, of course, that despite the conservative warnings of impending doom, due to the wrath of a loving and forgiving God, as well as the rejoicing this week here in California, this fight is clearly not over. For what of the equal protection of same-sex couples who marry in one state where their marriage is legally recognized, and then move to another where their union is not? To be continued; but so far, so good.
In the midst of the emotional roller coaster ride of Supreme Court rulings, there was the trial of Robert Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin in Florida; as well as the televised and tweeted circus of the Paula Deen meltdown for admitting to using the n-word. Even as I write these words, it seems surreal to me to have this triad of events noted in one sentence. Yes, the week was pretty action-packed for nerds like me.
The testimony of prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel in the Zimmerman trial further demonstrated the seemingly escalating culture clash here in the land of the free; a clash of immutable characteristics, and how our laws affect those who possess such characteristics, with white conservative America. The racial implications in this case are painfully obvious, as is the fact that non-white people see white people very differently than they see themselves, and visa versa. It was somewhat reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial, and how racially polarizing that case still is in our country. The social media universe was, as usual, full of empty-headed comments, some quite malicious and ugly, and mostly devoid of any real insight, about the quality and veracity of her testimony.
While Ms. Jeantel may present culturally differently than many of us, she is, nonetheless, a teenager who is struggling through a very difficult tragedy in her young life. I know that good trial attorneys may employ a lot of tricks of the trade to get what they want out of a witness, and Mr. West employed many of them. However, I think the testimony went on for far too long. The second day was all about trying to trip her up, which did not succeed; and to make her doubt herself, which also did not succeed. For this young woman stood her ground amidst it all and consistently, and often very assertively, testified in a very genuine and authentic manner, about some of the most crucial facts of this case. The great contrast between Mr. West and Ms. Jeantel -- in race, culture, education, wealth-class, age -- is the image that remains. I wonder how an almost all white jury of all women, most of whom are mothers, will weigh her testimony. Stay tuned.
And then there was the Paula Deen descent into drama queen of the week. I am not without sympathy or empathy for Paula Deen; and in response to the question being circulated on social media, yes, of course she should be forgiven, and we have all said stupid things in our past, and nobody's perfect. Cool. Got that. However, marketing is not about forgiveness; and there is a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation. We forgive to free ourselves of a draining anger and resentment. Reconciliation is beyond forgiveness and involves asking to be forgiven, admitting the wrong and vowing to change. Paula Deen has made it clear that she is not going to change, and therefore cannot be reconciled with a marketplace for her talent, because racism just doesn't sell like it used to in this greatly more diverse 21st century America. Corporate sponsors are now avoiding her like the plague, lest they wear the racist "cone of shame," and lose money right along with her.
Thus, it appears that Paula Deen is a prisoner of her own white supremacist background and upbringing. This is not about just one word used at one time. It is about her white supremacist attitude, as evidenced by her heart's desire of a plantation wedding, complete with dark-skinned servers -- just like pre-Civil War days. Moreover, she is still lamenting her great-grandfather's tragedy of having land, but no one to work it after the Civil War, and how that devastated him. Who would you rather be in that moment? A newly freed slave? Or a white property owner with no slaves? Clearly it was a national tragedy for all concerned, but prioritizing one's sympathies for those who lost free labor, over those enslaved, who lost considerably more, is just a very ugly pity party.
And finally, there was more good news this week coming out of the Senate, as they passed a comprehensive immigration bill. The celebration was once again short-lived, as House Speaker John Boehner announced that this miracle bill was dead on arrival in the House. So much for that GOP outreach to Latinos.
What does it all mean? For one thing, it appears that the GOP is doubling down on pursuing the conservative white vote, while passing laws restricting voter access to ethnic minorities, students, and poor people. This may work for them to some extent in 2014, and possibly 2016; but beyond those election cycles, this strategy will backfire in a big way, and with long-term consequences. This is doubly true regarding the Latino vote if congress doesn't pass some kind of meaningful immigration reform this session. This is not just a liberal wish, it is already written on the wall. The Republican party cannot spend the next 2 -- 4 years aggressively working to limit Democratic participation in our democracy, and then expect too many of those Democratic and Independent voters, i.e., youth and ethnic minorities, to turn around and vote for them when they run out of old white people -- and they will run out of old white people eventually. This is not about ideology. This is just plain math. If they continue to alienate anyone who is not white, "Christian," conservative and wealthy, it will take at least a generation to get them back, if they ever do.
Well, Mr. Chief Justice, maybe racism isn't gone after all. Perhaps it will take a major demographic shift, which is coming, to wash away our racist past and present.
What a week!
No comments:
Post a Comment