Feb 27th 2016

A Supreme Court Justice For the Twenty-First Century

by Charles J. Reid

Charles J. Reid, Jr. was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, where he majored in Latin, Classics, and History, and also did substantial coursework in classical Greek and modern European languages. It was during his undergraduate days that he developed an interest in canon law, doing a year of directed research in Roman and canon law under the supervision of James Brundage. Reid then attended the Catholic University of America, where he earned J.D. and J.C.L. (license in canon law) degrees. During his time at Catholic University, he organized a series of symposia on the bishops' pastoral letter on nuclear arms. The proceedings of these symposia were published under Reid's editorship as "Peace in a Nuclear Age: The Bishops' Pastoral Letter in Perspective" (Catholic University of America Press, 1986). This book was called by the New York Times "among the most scholarly and unsettling of responses" to the pastoral letter (December 28, 1986).Reid then attended Cornell University, where he earned a Ph.D. in the history of medieval law under the supervision of Brian Tierney. His thesis at Cornell was on the Christian, medieval origins of the western concept of individual rights. Over the last ten years, he has published a number of articles on the history of western rights thought, and is currently completing work on a book manuscript addressing this question.In 1991, Reid was appointed research associate in law and history at the Emory University School of Law, where he has worked closely with Harold Berman on the history of western law. He collaborated with Professor Berman on articles on the Lutheran legal science of the sixteenth century, the English legal science of the seventeenth century, and the flawed premises of Max Weber's legal historiography.While at Emory, Reid has also pursued a research agenda involving scholarship on the history of western notions of individual rights; the history of liberty of conscience in America; and the natural-law foundations of the jurisprudence of Judge John Noonan. He has also published articles on various aspects of the history of the English common law. He has had the chance to apply legal history in a forensic setting, serving as an expert witness in litigation involving the religious significance of Christian burial. Additionally, Reid has taught a seminar on the contribution of medieval canon law to the shaping of western constitutionalism.  Recently, Reid has become a featured blogger at the Huffington Post on current issues where religion, law and politics intersect.

Memo to President Obama: We need a Supreme Court Justice and we need one now. That justice should be prepared to fight the great the legal battles of the twenty-first century. And those battles concern primarily wealth and race.

Let's talk first about wealth. That discussion must begin with the worst Supreme Court decision of this young century, Citizens United v. FEC (2011). That opinion, which was the culmination of three decades-worth of judicial errors, declared as a matter of constitutional law that money is speech and that those who have more money have concomitantly greater rights to free speech. That was orwellian enough, but the Court also created a corporate right of free speech that allowed groups of persons to collect and spend unlimited sums of money to influence political campaigns.

How did the Supreme Court arrive at these sorry conclusions? We must begin with Watergate and the effort to reform the political order in the 1970's. Yes, Watergate was about President Richard Nixon authorizing a criminal break-in and wiretap operation on the Democratic Party. But Watergate involved more than this act of burglary. Nixon had also raised vast sums of money from donors through a variety of questionable means and Congress legislated against those abuses.

In 1974, therefore, Congress enacted reform legislation limiting the amount of money candidates could spend on campaigns. Limit the spending, it was thought, and you limit the opportunity for undue political influence. In 1976, however, in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court gutted many of these reforms. It was in Buckley v. Valeo that the Supreme Court first articulated its orwellian formula that money equals speech.

Citizens United was the logical outcome of Buckley. In the early 2000's, Congress again enacted legislation limiting campaign contributions. And once again the United States Supreme Court gutted those restrictions. We now inhabit a toxic political universe in which plutocrats seek to control the outcomes of elections through large, unregulated donations to their favored candidates. And don't think that they don't want a return on their investment.

A new Supreme Court justice must confront this sorry mess and reverse the line of cases from Buckley to Citizens United. For surely, much of today's turmoil in the political order has its roots in money trying to buy elections.

Now, let us shift focus to the relationship of wealth and race. The United States suffers from enormous structural discrimination as a result of established patterns of wealth distribution. Consider Flint Michigan and ask yourself: Would the State of Michigan allow the water supply of a wealthy white Detroit suburb to remain tainted for months by dangerous amounts of lead?

Forty years ago, in 1973, Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to serve on the Supreme Court, wrote a dissenting opinion whose reasoning must be revisited and revived by today's Supreme Court. The case was San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez. At issue was the funding of local school districts. Texas, like most states, then and now, depended on local property tax levies as the principal source of public school funds. This method of funding was challenged as unconstitutional by a group of poor school children who argued that they were deprived of educational opportunities that wealthier school children enjoyed for no other reason than accident of birth.

While a majority of Supreme Court justices upheld the Texas scheme, what really matters is Justice Marshall's dissent. He cut right to the heart of the matter: "The Court today decides that a State may . . . vary the quality of education which it offers its children in accordance with the amount of taxable wealth located in the school districts in which they reside." Wealth, Marshall went on, must be made a suspect constitutional class, and wealth-based discrimination must be subjected to higher levels of scrutiny.

To translate into non-lawyer speech: Marshall realized that education was a fundamental right. It opens the door to other opportunities to succeed. Poor children should not be deprived of those opportunities simply because they have been born poor. By extension, he also recognized that disparities in wealth might lead to other structural injustices.

Do you want to break the school-to-prison pipeline? We would do well to embrace Justice Marshall's dissent. Do you want an America where all children have the resources to succeed whatever the circumstances of their birth? We must turn again to Justice Marshall. Do you want to address the kind of structural discrimination that led to the poisoning of Flint? A new Supreme Court justice should find ways to expand on Justice Marshall's reasoning to do that.

We need a Supreme Court justice, in other words, who can see the ways in which disparities of wealth deprive whole classes of persons of the opportunities that are rightfully and constitutionally theirs.

Now let's examine some basic issues of racial injustice. American mass incarceration is appalling and an embarrassment to the world. A new Supreme Court justice cannot, of course, legislate against mass incarceration. But she can make the constitutionality of American sentencing policies a central feature of the cases she chooses to review.

And where sentencing policy is concerned, we must return our jurisprudence to a sense of proportionality. The appropriate vehicle for that is the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing in 1958, proposed that criminal sentencing must be measured against an "evolving standard of decency." In recent decades, our sentencing practices have not only not evolved, they have gone backwards. A new justice must be committed to scrutinizing the constitutionality of sentencing practices that have ruined the lives of countless thousands of young men and women for truly trivial offenses.

Then there is the matter of voting rights. In 2013, a 5-4 Supreme Court majority overruled congressional policy to free nine southern states from federal supervision under the Voting Rights Act. At the same time we are witnessing a number of states enacting franchise-restricting voter ID bills. A new Supreme Court justice must be committed to the ideal of an equal right to vote.

Last week's trial balloon floating the name of Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval for the Supreme Court was exactly the wrong signal to send. Sandoval is on the wrong side of the big issues -- where would he be on campaign finance reform? On voting rights? On the rights of labor? Yes, he is on the right side on gay marriage. He is on the right side of many things. But we must bear in mind that America needs a justice to address the big issues of wealth and race. And moderate Republican governors are not the place to find such justices.

 


This article is brought to you by the author who owns the copyright to the text.

Should you want to support the author’s creative work you can use the PayPal “Donate” button below.

Your donation is a transaction between you and the author. The proceeds go directly to the author’s PayPal account in full less PayPal’s commission.

Facts & Arts neither receives information about you, nor of your donation, nor does Facts & Arts receive a commission.

Facts & Arts does not pay the author, nor takes paid by the author, for the posting of the author's material on Facts & Arts. Facts & Arts finances its operations by selling advertising space.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Apr 13th 2021
EXTRACT: "Overall, our review has found that there isn’t evidence to back up the claims that veganism is good for your heart. But that is partly because there are few studies ....... But veganism may have other health benefits. Vegans have been found to have a healthier weight and lower blood glucose levels than those who consume meat and dairy. They are also less likely to develop cancer, high blood pressure and diabetes. "
Apr 8th 2021
EXTRACT: "Pollock’s universe, the universe of Mural, cannot be said to be a rational universe. Nor is it simply devoid of all sense. It is not a purely imaginary world, although in it everything is in a constant state of flux. Mural invokes one of the oldest questions of philosophy, a question going back to the Pre-Socratic philosophers Parmenides and Heraclitus – namely, whether the nature of Reality constitutes unchanging permanence or constant movement and flux. For Pollock, the only thing that is truly unchanging is change itself. The only certainty is that all is uncertain."
Apr 8th 2021
EXTRACT: "Many present day politicians appear to have psychopathic and narcissistic traits too. It’s easy to spot such leaders, because they are always authoritarian, following hardline policies. They try to subvert democracy, to reduce the freedom of the press and clamp down on dissent. They are obsessed with national prestige, and often persecute minority groups. And they are always corrupt and lacking in moral principles."
Apr 6th 2021
EXTRACT: "This has led some to claim that not just half, but perhaps nearly all advertising money is wasted, at least online. There are similar results outside of commerce. One review of field experiments in political campaigning argued “the best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero”. Zero!"
Mar 30th 2021
EXTRACT: "The Father is an extraordinary film, from Florian Zeller’s 2012 play entitled Le Père and directed by Zeller. I’m here to tell you why it is a ‘must see’." EDITOR'S NOTE: The official trailer is attached to the review.
Mar 28th 2021
EXTRACT: "Picasso was 26 in 1907, when he completed the Demoiselles; de Kooning was 48 in 1952, when he finished Woman I.  The difference in their ages was not an accident, for studies of hundreds of painters have revealed a striking regularity - the conceptual painters who preconceive their paintings, from Raphael to Warhol, consistently make their greatest contributions earlier in their careers than experimental painters, from Rembrandt to Pollock, who paint directly, without preparatory studies."
Mar 26th 2021
EXTRACT: "Mental toughness levels are influenced by many different factors. While genetics are partly responsible, a person’s environment is also relevant. For example, both positive experiences while you’re young and mental toughness training programmes have been found to make people mentally tougher."
Mar 20th 2021

The city of Homs has been ravaged by war, leaving millions of people homeless an

Mar 20th 2021
EXTRACT: "There are two main rival models of ethics: one is based on rights, the other on duties. The rights-based model, which traces its philosophical origins to the work of John Locke in the 17th century, starts from the assumption that individuals have rights ....... According to this approach, duties are related to rights, but only in a subordinate role. My right to health implies a duty on my country to provide some healthcare services, to the best of its abilities. This is arguably the dominant interpretation when philosophers talk about rights, including human rights." ........ "Your right to get sick, or to risk getting sick, could imply a duty on others to look after you during your illness." ..... "The pre-eminence of rights in our moral compass has vindicated unacceptable levels of selfishness. It is imperative to undertake a fundamental duty not to get sick, and to do everything in our means to avoid causing others to get sick. Morally speaking, duties should come first and should not be subordinated to rights." ..... "Putting duties before rights is not a new, revolutionary idea. In fact it is one of the oldest rules in the book of ethics. Primum non nocere, or first do no harm, is the core principle in the Hippocratic Oath historically taken by doctors, widely attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher and physician Hippocrates. It is also a fundamental principle in the moral philosophy of the Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, who in De Officiis (On Duties) argues that the first task of justice is to prevent men and women from causing harm to others."
Mar 18th 2021
EXTRACT: "Several studies have recently compared the difference between antibodies produced straight after a coronavirus infection and those that can be detected six months later. The findings have been both impressive and reassuring. Although there are fewer coronavirus-specific antibodies detectable in the blood six months after infection, the antibodies that remain have undergone significant changes. …….. the “mature” antibodies were better at recognising the variants."
Mar 15th 2021
EXTRACT: "Like Shakespeare, Goya sees evil as something existing in itself – indeed, the horror of evil arises precisely from its excess. It overflows and refuses to be contained by or integrated into our categories of reason or comprehension. By its very nature, evil refuses to remain within prescribed bounds – to remain fixed, say, within an economy where evil is counterbalanced by good. Evil is always excess of evil." ....... "Nowhere is this more evident than in war. Goya offers us a profound and sustained meditation on the nature of war ........ The image of a Napoleonic soldier gazing indifferently on a man who has been summarily hanged, probably by his own belt, expresses the tragedy of war – its dehumanization of both war’s victims and victors."
Mar 14th 2021
EXTRACT: "A blockchain company has bought a piece of Banksy artwork and burnt it. But instead of destroying the value of the art, they claim to have made it more valuable, because it was sold as a piece of blockchain art. The company behind the stunt, called Injective Protocol, bought the screen print from a New York gallery. They then live-streamed its burning on the Twitter account BurntBanksy. But why would anyone buy a piece of art just to burn it? Understanding the answer requires us to delve into the tricky world of blockchain or “NFT” art."
Mar 14th 2021
EXTRACT: "Exercise is good for your health at every age – and you can reap the benefits no matter how late in life you start. But our latest research has shown another benefit of being physically active throughout life. We found that in the US, people who were more physically active as teenagers and throughout adulthood had lower healthcare costs."
Mar 10th 2021
EXTRACT: "Although around one in 14 people over 65 have Alzheimer’s disease, there’s still no cure, and no way to prevent the disease from progressing. But a recent study may bring us one step closer to preventing Alzheimer’s. The trial, which was conducted on animals, has found a specific molecule can prevent the buildup of a toxic protein known to cause Alzheimer’s in the brain."
Feb 24th 2021
EXTRACT: "The art historian George Kubler observed that scholars in the humanities “pretend to despise measurement because of its ‘scientific’ nature.” As if to illustrate his point Robert Storr, former dean of Yale’s School of Art, declared that artistic success is “completely unquantifiable.” In fact, however, artistic success can be quantified, in several ways. One of these is based on the analysis of texts produced by art scholars, and this measure can give us a systematic understanding of how changes in recent art have produced changes in the canon of art history."
Feb 24th 2021
EXTRACT: "The most politically sensitive option we looked at was the virus escaping from a laboratory. We concluded this was extremely unlikely."
Feb 16th 2021
EXTRACT: ".... these men were completely unaware that they had put their lives in the hands of doctors who not only had no intention of healing them but were committed to observing them until the final autopsy – since it was believed that an autopsy alone could scientifically confirm the study’s findings. As one researcher wrote in a 1933 letter to a colleague, “As I see, we have no further interest in these patients until they die.” ...... The unquestionable ethical failure of Tuskegee is one with which we must grapple, and of which we must never lose sight, lest we allow such moral disasters to repeat themselves. "
Feb 14th 2021
EXTRACT: "In 2010 Carlos Rodriguez, the president of Buenos Aires' Universidad del CEMA, created the world's first - and only - Center for Creativity Economics.  During the next ten years, the CCE presented a number of short courses and seminars.  But the most important of its events was an annual lecture by an Argentine artist, who was given a Creative Career Award."
Feb 11th 2021
EXTRACT: "It’s not hard to see why. Although AI systems outperform humans in tasks that are often associated with a “high level of intelligence” (playing chess, Go, or Jeopardy), they are nowhere close to excelling at tasks that humans can master with little to no training (such as understanding jokes). What we call “common sense” is actually a massive base of tacit knowledge – the cumulative effect of experiencing the world and learning about it since childhood. Coding common-sense knowledge and feeding it into AI systems is an unresolved challenge. Although AI will continue to solve some difficult problems, it is a long way from performing many tasks that children undertake as a matter of course."
Feb 7th 2021
EXTRACT: "When it comes to being fit and healthy, we’re often reminded to aim to walk 10,000 steps per day. This can be a frustrating target to achieve, especially when we’re busy with work and other commitments. Most of us know by now that 10,000 steps is recommended everywhere as a target to achieve – and yet where did this number actually come from?"