As is their custom, the Justices leave the zingers for the end. Monday will end the term. However, three cases this week are of particular importance. Sadly, I too do not have enough time to read every single one. And as such, I will likely mess it up with an offhanded analysis. Instead, I just offer my unformed opinions, with links to people who actually can analyze the law.
First, the case of the Voting Rights Act, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder. Two analyses appear on the place I turn to for SCOTUS Analysis as opinions, appear, SCOTUSBlog. The first is by Lyle Denniston, and the second is by Tom Goldstein. Both analyses are worthwhile to read, and I will not repeat them.
One of the major questions though involving §5 is how effective is it. Common wisdom has it that §5 preclearance prevents the evils that the opinion itself outlines. However, the data regarding this matter is rather limited and shaky. Indeed, Congress in its reauthorization avoided touching §5. Democrats see it as a major win; it is a landmark of their Civil Rights Legacy. Republicans avoided touching it, because they saw it as keeping them in power in the South. §5 has some significant problems. In ruling narrowly, the Court pushes the matter back to Congress, which will hopefully address these infirmities. One should note that when the VRA came up for reauthorization, §5, at least in the House, seemed not to cause as much controversy. Some Southern Members did offer an amendment to the preclearance formula that would only put Hawaii under the §5 regime. However, the real fight both in Committee and on the floor seemed to center around the big matter of ballots printed in other languages. Remember, this was also the year of major immigration problems.
So, Congress has the ball, and the clock ticks. One can only hope that legislators step-up to the plate. I sort of, shyly, applaud the decision for its minimalism, and for bolstering the dialogical model of government. I fear of course saying this has now turned me into a crazy.
The second case involves strip searches. The case is Safford United School District v. Redding. SCOTUSblog analyzes it here. The case surprised me, because of course, this was the source of the famed horrific SCOTUS locker room questioning. That said, we do have a bit more protection for our students from strip searches in public schools. It does complicate the matter, and we will have to wait to see what happens. The case is significant too for the proverbial splitting of the difference. It applies only prospectively, not retrospectively. This prevents those from strip searches in the past from bringing suit. I think this is the right way to go forward.
Finally, the opinion involving the lab came down. SCOTUSblog analyzes Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts under the title "Law Need Not Bow to Chemistry." Of course, the title, as a failed chemist, draws my attention. However, I will have to say as a former chemist who holds the science in high regard, I think the case will cause an administrative nightmare for the prosecution, but I think it is right. Many of these forensic labs are shoddy. The work done there is terrible. Indeed, the NSF itself pointed to the problems in these labs. Justice Scalia anchors his idea on confrontation. However, I think confronting technicians is necessary to ensure that the standards are high. Furthermore, with the CSI spawns as one of the most popular shows on TV, juries now prejudicially feel as though this stuff is infallible. However, the reality itself are that these labs are far from the CSI standard. So, overall these cases work.
For an additional analysis of the last two cases, Nina Tottenberg has a great story on NPR. For an interesting take on how racism may have led to the limited decision on the Voting Rights Act, see this story.
No comments:
Post a Comment