646
Justice Elena Kagan accuses Supreme Court’s conservative majority of undermining democracy (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The liberal justice took aim at various recent rulings, including one that paved the way for rampant partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s conservative majority Tuesday, saying it undermined democracy in a series of rulings, including several that have prompted a new wave of legislative map-drawing that has increasingly eliminated competitive districts.

Kagan, who has dissented in those cases, also took aim at the majority for striking down campaign finance restrictions and, as she put it, the “evisceration” of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that was enacted to protect minority voters.

“Part of the reason why the court got it wrong was a kind of lack of the appropriate concern or understanding of the consequences of their decisions,” she said in remarks at Catholic University’s law school in Washington, D.C.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

The only cases I can think of where the courts were more progressive than the legislature are Roe, Obergefell, and Bostock, but the latter two were after the deadlocking of congress

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago

    They all trailed a bunch of state level reforms and outright popular activism.

    And they were minimalist in their reforms, not expansive and definitive. Which has cleared the way for their undermining and rollback through counter-revolutionary action.

    Roe was swiss cheese when it was written, hiding under the fig leaf of Privacy established two courts prior. Obergefell was barely more than a restatement of the the Equal Protection Clause and 14th Amendment. Bostock was a reiteration of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

    None of this was radical or even novel. It was the Courts squeezing out edge cases on a bunch of reactionary state legislatures that refused to accept settled law.

    Like, Oberfell in particular came over a decade after the Iowa courts trailblazed right to gay marriage. And that was, in turn, decades after civil courts were issuing licenses in defiance of social norms. And that was an eternity after gay cohabitation and "adult adoption" to stimulate legal marriage. They were way behind the curve.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent