The Supremes – Sunset Observer #7… by Whitney Farmer – Un Pop Culture | @MDWorld
July 2, 2013 Whitney Farmer 0 Comments
Multiple decisions issued by our nation’s highest judicial body were released over the past weeks. Forecasting how the majority would rule wasn’t successful if based on political party affiliation. Sorting through the decisions in search of a common thread gives rise to perhaps only one perceptible conclusion.
White guys rule.
Not that white guys sit in all of the seats of power. They don’t clearly. But instead white guys and the money that they control influence those who wear the robes.
I sincerely like white guys. Some of my best friends are white guys. And I am glad when things go well for them.
But activists who carry a 60s mold date and celebrate the Court’s ruling regarding same-sex marriage seem to be silent on rulings that were issued that should have caused an outcry from those who champion equal representation and value before the law.
In brief, here is a summation of some majority decisions:
-
The Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that kept southern states – key offenders historically – under special scrutiny.
-
They struck down an affirmative action policy in education, instead supporting a race-neutral approach in admissions.
-
They shielded corporations from human rights violations committed beyond our borders.
-
They reduced protection against corporate retaliation for employees who report racial discrimination.
-
Pharmaceutical companies who manufacture generic drugs have additional protection from lawsuits.
-
Corporations were granted new protections via arbitration clauses even if they have broken the law.
-
Law enforcement can take swab samples (from oral cavities for now…) without consent from those arrested but not convicted.
-
The Court limited the reach of the Miranda Rights procedure, allowing prosecutors to report to juries when a suspect refused to answer, thus implying guilt by silence.
-
They substantially limited the expansion of Obamacare into Medicaid while narrowly reaffirming healthcare reform with a 5-4 vote.
-
They struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional because it denied equality.
The only ruling from that list that appears to be not like the others, one that doesn’t belong, is the last. But I would suggest that it would need to be included as the same as the others because it has much to do about money.
Cases filed leading to the terminal review began with access to financial resources being denied. Those who lobby for the courts to re-examine issues need significant financial resources. And the wealthiest households per capita are those that include two white males with no children.
Don’t read more into what I am suggesting. This is all about money, who has it, and what is done with it. I am discussing where financial resources rest that can be used in transformative advocacy. Without resources, there is less chance that your rights will be championed successfully and upheld.
Corporations have done well. Employees have not.
Institutional powers have done well. Those who depend on them have not.
Poor people never do well.
Kids don’t produce wealth in the economy and can’t vote. Gay households statistically have fewer children and are thus less economically impacted by the issues surrounding children. Women earn less than men per capita even after adjustments for controllable variables, so birth control pills have been paid out of pocket while Viagra has been insured. And racial minorities still have fewer opportunities than all due to the strongholds that still remain entrenched: Race driving geography – driving access to quality public education – driving access to higher education – driving economic opportunity – driving earnings – driving geography…
Looking at the most recent decisions of the Supreme Court demonstrates one consistent theme: Those who have resources will have the ear and the gavel.
To those who were heard and affirmed, look in the rear view mirror and mourn the roadkill.
NEXT TIME: The Return of the Twinkie
Picture of the U.S. Supreme Court, courtesy of NPR.org.
Howard Cruse
July 2, 2013 - 7:16 am
I’m mostly with you, Michael, but do slow down with the broad brush. I howled, and I noticed plenty of other “activists who carry a 60s mold date” — gay and straight — howling with me over the gutting of the Voting Rights Act as well as the Court’s other “rich-white-male-centric rulings. Of course we celebrate the same-sex marriage victories because they were just, but none of my friends think that a couple of correct decisions make up for dozens of awful ones.
Mike Gold
July 2, 2013 - 10:45 am
I think it’s wrong to conflate the gay rights and marriage equality rulings with the Voting Rights Act decision, and then to blame it all on the white guys. As despicable and naive as the Voting Rights Act decision was, it has nothing to do with the gay rights rulings the following day. Damn the bad shit, enjoy the good stuff and let it spur activists on to further accomplishments.
Besides, the Supreme Court’s decisions are more based upon money than race or sex. Ask Justice Thomas, who wrote the concurring opinion in the Voting Rights Act decision. And that dude rarely offers opinions, at least not since he flunked the Pepsi Challenge.
Doug Abramson
July 2, 2013 - 2:40 pm
I don’t particularly like any of the rulings, other than the one’s that effect same sex marriage; but there is another one that I agree with. I don’t see the difference between a DNA swab and fingerprinting or a mug shot. Fingerprints and mug shots have traditionally been taken upon arrest, not conviction. Why should DNA swabs be any different? Like other two, DNA can be used to confirm a suspect’s identity and to check for an involvement in any other crimes. I honestly can’t see the difference.
Moriarty
July 3, 2013 - 7:03 am
Which quote works better, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” or “there is no new thing under the sun?”
Is it ironic that I was watching a program about an old white guy who took mountain that was sacred to the Souix and carved four giant white guys out of it after I read this? Or is that just coincidence?
George Haberberger
July 3, 2013 - 8:27 am
I agree with Doug about the DNA swab, It actually seems less intrusive than staining your fingers with ink. And of course DNA info has been used to exonerate people who were falsely convicted.
Whitney
July 4, 2013 - 1:48 am
Hey Guys –
I’m sorry I haven’t responded sooner. Just winding down from a bake sale at a biker bar to raise money for the French Gypsy project in August. I am whipped. I promise I will step into the arena tomorrow. Or rather today…
Whitney
July 4, 2013 - 11:35 am
Rene, and I suppose Jorge and Doug, too –
My reaction to the DNA swab decision might be that particularly of a woman. I’m not saying the lean math that you are doing that supports your position isn’t valid, but my consideration is based on being female. Plus, I used to have a boss who would ask to see my tongue.
In a world of fewer financial resources that can be assigned to uphold justice, I also look for efficient solutions. But a procedure without my consent that crosses the threshold of tissue that separates my footprint from the outside world makes me queasy to contemplate. Maybe it is because I am a woman. Anyone who wants to put anything in any part of me should be required to receive my permission first. Dentists, yes. Doctors, yes. Future husband, yes. Everyone else, no.
Not that this matters in much of the world. On the extreme end of the road upon which I am concerned we may be traveling, rape is a very effective tool during war to intimidate opponents.
In the States, people are willing to empty a magazine from a semi-automatic weapon if someone hops a fence into their backyard. I don’t condone this, but I thought there would be comparable outrage.
Bluntly, the court now says that I need to open my orifice and let someone stick something in it – before I have been charged with a crime. So, that’s my problem.
Whitney
July 4, 2013 - 11:41 am
Howard –
I know many feel disappointed, but has disappointment been transformed to assignment of resources and advocacy?
Whitney
July 4, 2013 - 11:45 am
Moriarty –
Let me be the first to possibly offend on this July 4th Independence Day and state that Mount Rushmore is a desecration.
Again, back to my original premise, why didn’t someone carve up Yosemite like this? White guys in power in California had more money and didn’t need to whore out the land. Why was this approved in South Dakota? White guys in power were able to get more money and do what they wanted.
Mike Gold
July 4, 2013 - 3:19 pm
” Just winding down from a bake sale at a biker bar to raise money for the French Gypsy project in August. I am whipped.”
THAT is the best line I’ve read all week!
Interesting point about Mount Rushmore. Damn, I hadn’t thought of it that way. There’s gonna be a whole lotta thinking goin’ on in my fevered brainpan, let me tell you.
Whitney
July 4, 2013 - 4:18 pm
Golden Boy –
Your comment just popped up. Otherwise I would have written sooner …
The clumsiness of my writing might not demonstrate that we agree.
When I specified White Guys, I was addressing everything about money.
As a demographic, a Caucasian male is the wealthiest per capita. Factor in the economies of scale
Whitney
July 4, 2013 - 4:23 pm
Oops…
…of scale realized from combining two households with two demographic winners and you have the financial seed money necessary to get a position heard.
Again, if green Orion slave girls were the wealthiest, than I would have written about green Orion slave girls.
I just want to put tbr ‘active’ back in activist.
Mike Gold
July 5, 2013 - 8:22 am
Rene – Ever see Wild In The Streets? That movie was somewhat better than it should have been, but it stands as an allegory. The ending (SPOILER ALERT, for people who don’t care for Max Frost and The Troopers) has the youthful presidential administration locking up all the adults. This begs the question: where do you put them?
Thanks to Wicked Uncle Adolf, we think we can round up an entire element of people and put them in concentration camps. But even Adolf was only half-successful at rounding up Jews and less so in rounding up Commies, Romani and homosexuals. It was comparatively easy then: no spy satellites to track every cattle car, no interception of electronic communication… no electronic communication. Today, if you fart in the local YMCA swimming pool Vlad Putin will go “Ewww.”
More to the point: if you lock up all the Whatevers, it’s gonna knock the shit out of tax revenue. Even if you steal all the art and sell it to the Swiss, you’re gonna need that money for something or other… starting with funding all those incarcerations.
Whitney
July 5, 2013 - 12:19 pm
Golden Boy –
Here’s another one:
We sold cupcakes to Mongols to help us buy crayons for Gypsy kids in France.
The Hells Angels looked, but no sales. Maybe next week…
True story.
Howard Cruse
July 5, 2013 - 12:22 pm
Whitney — I’m with you on the need for disappointment (or outrage) to generate action. The nature of one person’s advocacy is always affected by the time and resources available and where one’s individual talents lie, though. It can take time to chart one’s course.
Mike Gold
July 5, 2013 - 2:29 pm
You can kill a lot of peasants with one nuke. And there’s plenty of them lying around. You don’t have to be a crazy right-wing Republican to take note of the horrors we face daily. But you have to be a crazy right-wing Republican to sell the freedoms you have down the river in fear of those horrors. And, sadly, that’s what those crazy right-wing Republicans sell for a living.
Remember how they took over the Congress by scaring people about the forthcoming Gay Invasion? Turns out there WAS a Gay Invasion after all. And it hasn’t changed any straight person’s live one bit — except for their own self-imposed bigoted paranoia.
I’ve never been interested in making a buck, which was probably a mistake. I’m still interested in having sex. Just so you know…