By Legal Editor Scott V. Sandford with
National Correspondent Nellie Bly
We ran out of space last time to bring you up-to-date on the latest outrages perpetrated by what Justice Brandeis once called “laboratories of democracy,” or as you know them, states.
It turns out that not a week goes by in America when Republican-bent state legislatures aren't engaged in subverting not only basic human rights but democracy itself. And, spoiler alert, the chances of making them stop by voting are, thanks to the corrupt and Republican-owned Supreme Court, between slim and none – and slim just moved to California.
In Missouri, the Republican Attorney General denied all Missourians the right to receive medical care for a life-threatening condition. Meanwhile, its bent Republican legislature is likely to pass a ban on gender-affirming medical care for trans kids:
Despite Freels [a 17-year-old trans woman] testifying that gender-affirming care has made her feel much happier and has helped her heal from depression and suicidal thoughts, Missouri lawmakers seem poised to approve legislation that bars puberty blockers, hormone therapy and gender transition surgery for minors.
Ban medical care that parents want for their children? What could go wrong, other than the kids killing themselves?
And by the way, whatever happened to the Republican braying about “parents' rights?”
 |
| Plenty of room on Boot Hill for future victims of Texas Republicans |
Down in the pro-life state of Texas, meanwhile, the state's vague but drastic anti-abortion laws are threatening the health and safety of women forced to march up to death's door before they can be treated for a failed pregnancy:
[Amanda] Zurawski, who was diagnosed with an “incompetent cervix” during her second trimester last year, received an emergency abortion only after her condition deteriorated and she went into septic shock.
“I cannot adequately put into words the trauma and despair that comes with waiting to either lose your own life, your child’s life, or both,” she told The Intercept earlier this year. “For days I was locked in this bizarre and avoidable hell.”...
Texas is one of 13 states nationwide that currently outlaws abortion. The language in its abortion laws is both restrictive and “incredibly vague,” Zurawski said, “and it leaves doctors grappling with what they can and cannot do, what health care they can and cannot provide.”
Last month, the nonprofit Center for Reproductive Rights sued Texas on behalf of Zurawski and four other women who suffered “catastrophic harms” because they were forced to continue carrying their babies. The suit seeks clarity on when and how healthcare providers can legally perform an abortion in the state.
We all know the value that Texas places on human life; if you don't just send your kids to school and then swing by the outlet mall.
By the way, how's all this cruel hard-right extremism playing in Texas?
Abbott, who is in his third term as governor, has never been more powerful in Texas. He enjoys near complete approval from Republican voters — and many independents and South Texas Democrats — for his policies such as border security initiative Operation Lone Star. His political appointees are scattered throughout the state in influential sectors and in courtrooms. Because of redistricting, he and his allies have helped make it harder for a Democrat to win or hold onto seats. And he has managed to fortify his hold on voters and their state representatives regardless of the state’s growing Black, Latino and Asian American population.
We'll get to the redistricting bit shortly.
Next stop, Montana, where anti-trans bigotry is more highly valued than democracy. The state's only trans legislator was silenced, and her constituents disenfranchised because the white Republican men who dominate that august institution had their feelings hurt:
 |
| No one is safe from the Montana Legislature |
First-term Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr had been prevented from speaking on the chamber floor by the House speaker since April 20, when she refused to apologize for telling colleagues who supported a ban on gender-affirming care for youths that they would have “blood” on their hands.
...
The ruling means ... Zephyr wouldn't get a chance to speak on the House floor unless she's reelected next year.
Republicans have a two-thirds majority in the Montana Legislature and control the governor's office, attorney general's office and almost every other statewide elected office.
“Your rights stop at a legislative supermajority,” Zephyr said.... “If two-thirds of a body decide that you and your constituents don't deserve representation, you don't get it. ... That should be a huge worry for people who want to stand up for democracy."
The standoff between Zephyr and House Republicans originated in a dispute over gender-affirming care for minors, a bill Gov. Greg Gianforte has signed into law. It has evolved to dovetail with a nationwide debate over the robustness of democracy in politically polarizing times.
That's a somewhat elliptical way to put it, but give ABC News at least one point for pointing out that democracy itself is on the line in these bent Republican states. By the way, is that the same Greg Gianforte who slugged a reporter for asking him a question he didn't like? (Yes.)
Our last stop today is North Carolina, where the punchline is delivered: even if voters tire of the hateful
Frankenstein's monsters coming out of these state laboratories, they can't do anything about it because those same states have rigged the vote and the Republican-bent Supreme Court is A-OK with that.
In addition to stomping on the right of women to obtain an abortion after 12 weeks and the rights of parents to decide on gender-affirming care for their children, the North Carolina legislature now has a golden opportunity to gerrymander itself into perpetual power:
North Carolina voters are almost evenly split between the two major parties; Donald J. Trump carried the state in 2020 with 49.9 percent of the vote. But the original map of congressional districts approved by the G.O.P. legislature in 2021, and later ruled to be a partisan gerrymander, would probably have given Republicans at least 10 of the state’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
There is no reason to expect a better outcome with state legislative districts, with the result that 49.9% of the vote would give the Republicans a veto-proof 71% of the seats.
That seems...bad. But not if you're a Republican Supreme Court Justice!
When congressional and legislative maps are redrawn each decade, they often are manipulated to discriminate against communities of color or for partisan gain. Courts, both state and federal, play an important role in keeping these practices in check. Unfortunately, in June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may not police partisan gerrymandering, leaving that issue to state courts or the political process.
Unfortunate indeed, as the North Carolina example demonstrates. We know why the real reason the bent Republican court ruled in favor of, um, Republicans, but let's pursue their stated rationale:
 |
| John Roberts sure has changed since college |
The chief’s [that's John Roberts '76 to his many college friends] opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny. The court’s majority decided that partisan gerrymandering disputes are “non-justiciable” — that is, the courts can’t intervene in them — because, essentially, courts aren’t equipped to come up with a standard to determine when gerrymanders go too far. Never mind that the lack of what the court calls a “judicially manageable standard” appears to have literally never held the justices back before on any other issue. Never mind also that, as the Brennan Center’s Tom Wolf has pointed out, five different federal courts, relying on the work of respected political scientists, have had little trouble coming up with manageable standards to strike down partisan gerrymanders in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, and Maryland. To Roberts, it’s all a bunch of “sociological gobbledygook.”
Speaking of manageable standards, how did Republican Justices (including the easily-confused John Roberts) decide what's a “Major Issue” and thus outside the power of regulatory agencies despite clear statutory authority? The Brennan Center has an answer: “What that means is vague. But we are already seeing lower court judges using the new doctrine to undo rules they just don’t like. “Major” may mean “if a judge with a lifetime appointment and the Federalist Society on speed dial doesn’t like it.”” Funny how that works.
So short story long: thanks to the bent Republican Supreme Court, in many cases it may be impossible to rescue women, children, and other unfortunates from mayhem in the Laboratories of Democracy merely by voting in state elections. It will require litigation, but most of all we will need a concerted national effort to replace every Republican legislator and Justice with non-corrupt non-craven Democrats who don't mingle with billionaire plutocrats under the benign gaze of...Adolf Hitler.
Most of all, it takes recognition that we've got a problem here.
No comments:
Post a Comment