Getty Image

Between the upcoming HBO film Confirmation, which dramatizes his nomination by President George H. W. Bush and the subsequent confirmation hearings, and his speaking in court for the first time in 10 years, 2016 is shaping up to be a banner year for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The major headlines he’s generated thus far pale in comparison to his former colleage Antonin Scalia’s passing in February, which generated a smorgasbord of conspiracy theories and political quarrels about a possible successor. But if a courtroom sketch artist’s most recent drawing of Thomas in (in-)action is any indication, the judge won’t go down without a publicized fight.

During the Supreme Court’s hearing of oral arguments in the case of Birchfield v. North Dakota, sketch artist Arthur Lien caught Thomas in such a subtle way, he’s easy to miss. Good thing social media was on the case:

Yes, that’s a shot of Thomas’s head — and just his head — peering above the bench. His fellow justices are at least present enough to display their shoulders, arms and elbows, but according to Lien’s drawing, Thomas just couldn’t be bothered.

However, that isn’t the case as Law Newz caught up with Lien to find out what happened. Lien, who’s been sketching for the Supreme Court since 1976, explained that Thomas “often leans way back in his chair and looks at the ceiling.”

“In this case he may have been reading something or just listening. He does give the appearance of being disengaged at times, but then he’ll sit up and lean forward as if he’s about to ask a question, which of course he rarely does. I’ve sketched him both ways. I sketch what I see.”

Per Lien’s statement and sketch, it seems what he sees is Thomas simply adopting a rather relaxed sitting position during oral arguments. Twitter thought differently:

(Via Law Newz)

Getty Image

On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty sentence for a black Georgia inmate in the Foster v. Chapman case. Timothy Tyrone Foster, who has served nearly three decades in prison, was convicted by an all-white jury of killing a white woman. The Supreme Court’s ruling arrived with overwhelming 7-1 numbers and Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority. Roberts concluded that prosecutors struck two black jurors from the pool while being “motivated in substantial part by race.” The ruling rejected the lower courts’ reliance upon Batson v. Kentucky, a 1986 case that allows a state to make race-neutral arguments for why jurors were excluded.

Robert said the above “argument falls flat,” and the majority found that the record revealed a racial motivation for juror exclusion. Indeed, the court’s majority opinion reflects a review of questionnaires and peremptory challenges from the initial jury selection process. This evidence included a handwritten note that showed several qualified black jurors being rejected with “definite NOs” written next to their names. The Supreme Court then reversed and remanded Foster’s conviction, and he shall receive a new trial. This ruling could eventually provide bittersweet justice for a man who’s lost three decades of his life.

Justice Clarence Thomas stood as the lone dissenter in this case. He provided a cursory argument about how jury selection shouldn’t be revisited three decades after the fact. Thomas also made a vague remark (which he did not clarify) about how the Supreme Court may lack jurisdiction to overturn Foster’s death penalty. One wonders how Justice Antonin Scalia would have voted if he were still alive and kicking. Thomas recently spoke at a Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference in Houston, where he said, “Scalia and I were always two peas in a pod. He took some blame for my decisions because he was supposed to be my boss. I told him that was the white man’s burden.” That last comment was apparently a joke, as the audience laughed. But as one can imagine, Twitter had a few things to say about Thomas’ newest dissent.

(Via SupremeCourt.gov)

Getty Image

Over forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court established a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion. Since then, lawmakers, special interest groups, and confused presidential candidates have worked to reverse this right. The court’s landmark case, Roe v. Wade (1973), struck down a Texas law that criminally punished the act of helping a woman get an abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) established an equally important precedent. The case ruled against a Pennsylvania law that placed “a substantial obstacle” in front of women wishing to obtain an abortion as an “undue burden.” Thus, the undue burden test was born to measure state abortion laws’ constitutionality. And now this test has thrust Texas back into the legal spotlight.

To be fair, Texas did plenty of thrusting on its own.

Few people will ever be convinced by opposing arguments on abortion. The eight justices are no exception to this rule, especially without a ninth, tie-breaking vote. In early 2016, Justice Scalia died in Texas and removed a conservative voice from the court, which remains sharply divided on social issues. The current case in question — Whole Women’s Health vs. Texas — revolves around the 2013 Texas HB2 law. John Oliver recently shredded the legislation’s new clinic requirements as arbitrary and geared more toward eliminating abortion than a medical purpose. The law places these restrictions upon abortions:

• Pregnancies past 20 weeks don’t qualify for an abortion unless the life of the mother or child is at serious risk. In these cases, the abortion doctor must perform the procedure in a way that “provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive.”
• Patients using the abortion pill must make up to four in-person clinic visits. These include two pill-taking visits, a follow-up appointment, and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period after an ultrasound for any woman who lives within 100 miles of the clinic.
• Abortion clinic doctors must also have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. This is the hardest point to satisfy because hospitals aren’t jumping to grant such privileges.

HB2 has already caused clinic shutdowns. If left in place, the law could drive down existing facility numbers from 40 to 10. In a state as expansive as Texas, such a drastic cutback would make getting an abortion insanely difficult. The law has already driven up procedure prices too, which presents difficulty for low-income women looking for safe, legal abortions.

In March, SCOTUS considered case arguments about the constitutionality of HB2. And as expected, the proceeding’s transcript revealed conflict. Four liberal justices hammered away with their belief that the law serves no medical benefit and therefore presents an undue burden on patients. Three conservative justices felt otherwise. And an unconvinced Justice Anthony Kennedy had questions. He suggested that this law could increase surgical abortions, which he worried, “May not be medically wise.” But he thought there wasn’t enough evidence to tell how many clinic abortions would be affected. Kennedy’s vote will mean everything to this verdict.

A 4-to-4 SCOTUS tie would leave the appellate ruling in place and uphold the Texas law, which would hinder an untold number of women in the state, and the new legal precedent it would set would also potentially affect millions of women across the country, minority women in particular. Marcela Howell, founder and executive director of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda) explained to us how the stakes are high for her community.

“For the 725,000 Black women of reproductive age in Texas, HB2 creates higher costs, longer delays and extra steps for women seeking an abortion,” Howell said. “Black women already face significant barriers to accessing reproductive health care. HB2 dramatically heightened these barriers. Economic hardships, inflexible work schedules and extensive family obligations are facts of life for many Black women living in Texas. The obstacles resulting from HB2 — longer waiting times, extensive travel, costs of child care — make accessing abortion services all but impossible for many women.”

Jessica González-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, echoes that sentiment, adding more sobering statistics along with the bottom line, which is a virtual abortion ban upon her community.

“The 2.5 million Latina women of reproductive age in Texas are placed under increased burden by these laws because of their immigration status, zip code and income level,” González-Rojas told us. “For Latinas, particularly in the rural lower Rio Grande Valley, they would have to travel several hours and hundreds of miles to the next available clinic in Austin if the McAllen clinic shutters its doors. These barriers could mean a de facto ban on abortion for Latinas living in the Rio Grande Valley.”

Miriam Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, believes it’s unjust to elevate an abortion-seeking woman’s already high emotional burden with additional obstacles.

“Texas is home to the third largest community of Asian American and Pacific Islander women and girls in the United States,” Yeung said. “If HB2 is not struck down, abortion clinics will literally become hundreds of miles harder for our women to access. The emotional distance that women already have to travel to get an abortion is harrowing enough with all the unnecessary laws in place that make women endure waiting periods and undergo sonogram descriptions. By shutting down clinics, HB2 makes the physical distance all but impossible for some in our community to navigate.”

On a national level, the effects on these minority communities would be even more devastating. Howell references the Guttmacher Institute’s research of 288 recent laws that have quietly passed in many (predominantly Southern) states, which effectively shut down abortion access for 12.5 million black women. She also notes the additional difficulties presented by the federal Hyde Amendment that slaps funding restrictions on facilities that provide abortions. González-Rojas points towards the 28 million Latinas in the United States who would be “disproportionately impacted” by clinic shutdowns. And Yeung highlights the Indiana case of Purvi Patel, who ordered abortion pills online and received 20 years in prison for feticide. If HB2 stands, Yeung warns, “We are bound to see more Purvi Patels.”

All three experts we spoke to lament the paternal nature of laws such as HB2 and the Hyde Amendment, which disproportionately target women of color. Hyde did so by limiting funding, and HB2 seeks to eliminate the only available abortion facilities for poor women. As Howell puts it, “Laws cutting off access to abortion services for low-income women who are predominantly women of color are symptomatic of systemic discrimination.” She also believes that it’s time to push back and “trust all women to make the important personal decisions about abortion that are right for themselves.” González-Rojas agrees that these clinic shutdown laws “perpetuate already existing systems of systemic discrimination against immigrants, low-wage workers, mothers, and Latinas who are all three.” And Yeung did not hold back when questioned about whether these laws illuminate systemic discrimination.

“Absolutely. What else do you call it when you’ve got laws that were passed by a majority of straight, cisgender, white men but the burdens are born disproportionately by poor, women of color? Laws like HB2 are absolutely manifestations of systemic racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, ableism and nativism,” she argued.

Indeed, these shutdowns will only increase the level of difficulty in obtaining abortions. HB2 has not only shuttered clinics, which causes access hurdles associated with travel, but the increased demand at the remaining clinics has lengthened wait times and spiked the cost of obtaining an abortion. The effect of HB2 is akin to a ban — which zeroes in on women of color — on an entirely legal procedure. Thus, these experts hope the Supreme Court will rule that the law creates an undue burden and is therefore unconstitutional. Such a verdict would not only be a pro-choice victory but also a strike against systemic discrimination.

Getty Image

The Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges to the constitutionality of assault weapons bans in New York and Connecticut.

Both cases were challenging laws passed in the two states in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left 20 students and six faculty members dead. The Connecticut law banned over 100 types of firearms and made magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds illegal in the state. The New York law banned any further sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines while also creating a registry of existing assault weapons in the state. SCOTUS declined to hear both and offered no comment on their reasoning.

The decision to not hear the cases means lower court rulings that allowed the law to stand will remain in place. Connecticut’s Attorney General George Jepsen, in court paper’s arguing for the legality of the ban, said that the law was aimed at “firearms that are owned by a small percentage of gun owners and are disproportionately used in…the most heinous forms of gun violence.”

The move by the Supreme Court isn’t particularly surprising given their reaction to similar cases since the 5-4 decision in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller established the right to own a firearm for home defense. Since that time, the court has largely taken a hands-off approach to gun laws passed at the state level. Just last year, they declined to consider a similar weapons ban in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, though that decision came with dissents from Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. That decision came days after the San Bernardino shooting, much as this one does the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Assault weapons were banned nationwide from 1994 to 2004. However, attempts to reinstate that ban have been unsuccessful. Currently, seven states have passed their own bans on assault weapons: California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and Hawaii.

(Via USA Today)

Getty Image

With the absence of the deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s entering into a whole lot of deadlock. Most of the current term’s cases will drop by Monday (although the court may add days to its calendar), and some big ones are rolling out today. And somehow, the most significant immigration case in decades was shut down in a 4-4 deadlock with a mere one sentence ruling: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” Those few words — with no further elaboration — have potentially decided the fates of up to 4 million undocumented immigrants.

The case, United States v. Texas, revolves around President Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration. This was a bold, controversial move to be certain. Obama moved to protect certain unauthorized immigrants (these include parents of children who are legal residents and spouses of legal residents) though a “deferred action,” which would allow them to avoid deportation and obtain work authorization. The court’s deadlock will leave the appeals court ruling — which blocks Obama’s plan — in place.

Well, Obama issued a statement to condemn the Supreme Court’s decision. He points a finger at the Republicans’ refusal to consider Merrick Garland as his Supreme Court nominee. Obama notes that no more action on this issue can be taken until a ninth justice is confirmed. He also hints at his perception of being “challenged for taking the kinds of actions that other administrations have taken” and expresses disappointment:

“Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality into our immigration system — and to allow people to come out of the shadows and lift this perpetual cloud on them. I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who’ve made their lives here; who’ve raised families here; who’ve hoped for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military, and more fully contribute to this country we all love in an open way.

“It is my firm belief that immigration is not something to fear. We don’t have to wall ourselves off from those who may not look like us right now or pray like we do or have a different last name because being an American is about something more than that.”

Even as Obama shades Donald Trump’s Wall, the effect of this ruling does the same to his use of executive orders. Obama has grown particularly fond of using this method while encountering a frequently uncooperative Congress who — even when it comes to vital issues — has to resort to a filibuster and a sit-in to try and force its own action. But it seems that the Supreme Court has sent a clear message to the president on this executive order.

Indeed, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement to celebrate the ruling: “One person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law. This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.” Here’s a video of Obama’s response to the SCOTUS ruling.

(Via SupremeCourt.gov, WhiteHouse.gov and New York Times)

Getty Image

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas again. They considered the same case brought forth by Abigail Fisher, in a move that says she was denied admission to the University of Texas based on her race. In 2013, the Supreme Court sent her case back to an appeals court. This time, they ruled definitively against her.

According to Politico, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, in which he said that University of Texas’ admissions policy does not violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause. However, he also said that the university must continually reevaluate its policy in accordance with the times. As Politico quotes his opinion:

“The record here reveals that the university articulated concrete and precise goals (for example) ending stereotypes, promoting ‘cross-racial understanding,’ preparing students for ‘an increasingly diverse workforce and society,’ and cultivating leaders with ‘legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry’ — that mirror the compelling interest this Court has approved in prior cases,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissenting opinion, saying that UT had not adequately defined what purpose considering race in their admissions decisions served. He lamented the possibility that this ruling would empower other universities to use race as more of a consideration in admitting students.

Seven Supreme Court justices participated in the decision. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, as she had worked on the case as U.S. solicitor general. The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat remains unfilled.

As the New York Times explains, The UT System’s admissions policy has garnered significant controversy over the years. In large part to ensure racial diversity, it guarantees admission for the top students at every high school in the state. It’s commonly known as the Top 10 Percent program, though the ranking cutoff for this policy varies by year. Abigail Fisher challenged the second part of the university’s policy, which fills the remainder of its class based on a holistic process that considers race as one factor.

The Huffington Post points out that when Fisher applied for admission to UT’s flagship campus in Austin, her application wasn’t strong enough for admission under either policy, because her GPA was too low. After Thursday’s ruling, Twitter users taunted her under the hashtag #StayMadAbby and #BeckyWithTheBadGrades. Below, a sampling of these tweets:

You can read the entire Supreme Court opinion here.

(via Politico, New York Times and Huffington Post)

Getty Image

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court delivered rulings on three final cases before adjourning for summer recess. Voisine v. United States and McDonnell v. United States concerned domestic violence misdemeanors turned federal violations and Former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell’s past convictions respectively, but the third case posed the biggest challenge and the greatest potential for nationwide ramifications. That’s because Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to the 2013 Texas HB2 law, could shift the national conversation about abortion and women’s rights — that is, if Justice Scalia’s death and the court’s current even split of liberal and conservative justices doesn’t get in the way.

Yet the strong possibility of a tie was trumped when, by a 5-3 decision, the SCOTUS reversed the 5th Circuit Court’s decision and struck down the HB2 law. In other words, they invalidated the two specific restrictions Texas and subsequent lower court rulings had placed on, and enforced for women seeking abortions in the state.

The two provisions in question required (1) doctors who performed abortions to have hospital admissions privileges, and (2) clinics that provided abortions to provide surgical outpatient-like facilities. At first glance, these two restrictions might not seem like much — in fact, they may even sound medically sound. Yet specialized clinics were already routinely inspected and certified for state and federal health code restrictions, which required neither of these new limitations. As a result, Texas began closing clinics all over the state.

This placed an undue burden on doctors and clinics, and the SCOTUS’s majority opinion agreed:

Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, who was joined by none other than Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican whose vote on the matter was considered the swing that made the final 5-3 decision possible. “There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure,” Breyer wrote, adding that the provisions placed “an ‘undue burden’ on [women’s] constitutional right to do so.”

Meanwhile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg provided the decision’s concurring opinion:

When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.

Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. Thomas in particular was unhappy with the majority’s ruling and wrote his own letter of dissent:

Today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine. I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights — especially the putative right to abortion.

Soon after the news broke, Whole Woman’s Health founder and CEO Amy Hagstrom Miller lauded the majority opinion:

Every day Whole Woman’s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity — and today the Supreme Court did the same. We’re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open.

(Via SCOTUSblog and United States Supreme Court)

Shutterstock

On Monday morning, the Supreme Court upheld women’s basic rights and safety in a landmark abortion case (while striking down Texas’ extremely restrictive abortion law). And the highest court in the land also upheld a federal ban on convicted domestic abusers being able to get access to guns.

According to CBS News, the case concerns two men from Maine, who tried to argue that pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges shouldn’t disqualify them from owning guns. The men also argued that since their crimes were committed “in the heat of an argument” and not with intention, a federal law banning them from owning a gun should not apply to them. The Supreme Court rejected such an argument.

One of the men challenging the federal ban pled guilty for simple assault in 2003 for slapping his girlfriend while drunk. In 2009, an anonymous person called in a tip that they saw the man, Stephen Voisine, shoot a bald eagle. He was then convicted for violating the federal law. The other challenger was charged with illegal gun possession under this statute after police found firearms at his house, as the Wall Street Journal reports.

The Wall Street Journal also reveals that the Supreme Court upheld the federal law in a 6-2 decision, with Justice Elena Kagan authoring the majority opinion. Along with its implications for violence against women and gun control, this case became notable when Justice Clarence Thomas made headlines for asking a question for the first time in 10 years during oral arguments in this case. His questioning involved underlining whether a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction really necessitates taking away someone’s constitutional right to bear arms, as encoded in the 2nd amendment. He redrew this association in his dissent on Monday.

(via CBS News and Wall Street Journal)

Getty Image

Whether or not you’re a fan of The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, it’s safe to say the South-African comedian’s turn as the host of Comedy Central’s flagship late night program is going okay. He and his batch of correspondents have proven this time and time again with segments about everything from the Orlando night club shooting to Donald Trump’s bid for the White House. Besides, the post-Jon Stewart iteration of the series isn’t even a year old, and building a following after a comedic force like that takes time. Though it’s probably going to take a lot more time after a jokey tweet about Monday’s abortion ruling by the Supreme Court.

The tweet in question, which remains online as of this writing, offers some snarky advice for how to celebrate the 5-3 decision to overturn a 2013 Texas law limiting women’s access to abortion. Specifically, it suggests the reader “go knock someone up in Texas”:

Via The Daily Show on Twitter

The tweet currently boasts over 180 retweets and 450 likes, though that number is expected to climb the longer The Daily Show‘s social media team decides to keep it up. So too will the number of provocative, sarcastic, and genuinely displeased responses from critics and fans alike.

Obvious detractors like Meghan McCain, a well known conservative commentator and the daughter of Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), offered their two cents:

So did many Twitter users who identified themselves as pro-choice:

As always, the best and most trollerific bits were reserved for those who just wanted to light the internet on fire.

The Daily Show‘s Twitter account later explained they were “certainly not promoting abortions”:

Of all the things, as Business Insider’s Josh Barro pointed out, it took a tasteless joke about getting people pregnant to unite all sides of the abortion debate for one shining moment.

Getty Image

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act with the Shelby County v. Holder ruling. The court found a centerpiece section of the act to be unconstitutional, which now makes it a lot easier for states to merrily tweak election procedures without federal preclearance. And many new state voting restrictions exist without the act’s full protection. With the third anniversary of this ruling, America sits in the unique position of observing its hellish effects on primary season while wondering how drastically it will affect the general election. What impact will we see upon affected communities, and is there anything citizens can do to quell the damage?

In search of answers, we spoke with Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., whose community activism knows few parallels. You may know Yearwood for his post-Hurricane Katrina work for survivors’ rights through the Gulf Coast Renewal campaign. He’s recognized by the White House as a Champion in Change. He founded the nonpartisan Hip Hop Caucus in 2004 and has partnered with many artists (including P. Diddy, T.I., and Vic Mensa) on community action issues including environmental justice, cannabis policy, and the Black Lives Matter movement. The organization’s Respect My Vote! campaign aims to re-strengthen the Voting Rights Act.

The Danger Of A Weakened Act On Election Season

Yearwood lists a number of concerns about Shelby v. Holder‘s effect on voting rights and voting discrimination. For example, states can now change polling locations without reason. This discourages voting through numerous access barriers, and communities can’t complain until after an election. Yearwood knows we’ve already seen damage during primary season and will see more in November. In Arizona, fewer polling booths caused long lines in many locations. New York and Arizona have seen reduced voting rolls, and Texas has tweaked its voter ID process in a way that Yearwood believes “raises suspicion.” To illustrate exactly what’s going on in the Lone Star State, just consider this — one can secure a voter ID by using a gun permit as a form of ID. But a student ID? That doesn’t fly.

Texas’ voter ID restrictions certainly affect millennials. Yearwood believes many new laws also target “elderly, disabled, and communities of color” by inhibiting access in similar ways. As Yearwood points out, the virtual dismantling of the Voting Rights Act allows “states which have historically — have some really bad history in regards to voting rights and voter suppression — it allows them to be in the position where they can change the law.” So, those affected by changes in election procedures will suffer. People and entire communities can start to feel like their voice means nothing. In short order, democracy itself gets shut down by way of a vanishing electorate.

Some Seriously Shady Supreme Court Logic

Moving back into the Shelby v. Holder discussion, Chief Justice Roberts made a curious claim while penning the majority opinion. He asserted that “things have changed dramatically” since the act’s passage in 1965. Yearwood sees things differently.

“I don’t agree with that,” he said. “I think that while some things have definitely improved, and we’re very happy, there are certainly things that have not improved. And if there’s anything that could limit voter participation, why would you want to test the process?”

Yearwood tells us that weakened voting rights support how “many people actually feel that cases of racism have become much more sophisticated.” So, the poll taxes of decades past have been replaced by fancy ID restrictions. And because many requirements are cost-prohibitive (my state charges $30+ for a driver’s license plus $20 for the birth certificate required as proof of identity), some form of poll taxing still exists. Other restrictions apply too. Several states still don’t allow ex-offenders to vote after rejoining society. For all these reasons, Yearwood continues, “I don’t agree with [Roberts’ assertion] at all. I think we have a long way to go. And the data shows that we clearly have a long way to go in making sure that everyone can vote and have a voice in this system.”

Chief Justice Roberts also placed the burden of changing the Voting Rights Act upon Congress. Does Yearwood have any confidence that this will happen in the near future? He laments how “It’s unfortunate that voting rights have become a partisan issue. That actually shows that the system is broken and needs to be fixed … something is really wrong.” He hopes “this Congress or the next Congress will do their duty” to inhibit voting restrictions and ensure rights for all.

Can The Voting Rights Act Be Saved?

This brings Yearwood to the immeasurable work done by the Hip Hop Caucus to engage young people in the political process.

“We want to make voting a lifestyle,” he said. “First step is to vote. And second step is to make sure they are part of the policymaking process. They don’t stop on election day, but they’re also engaging in policies that affect their communities. Everything from climate change, environmental justice, water in Flint, healthcare, education, jobs, economic security, and so we want to shape that.”

Yet these steps alone won’t work change. “The third part comes in with Shelby v. Holder. We want to make sure that vote matters. It doesn’t make any sense for us to do all this work, to get people to register to vote, and want to vote, and then their vote doesn’t count,” Yearwood concludes. “That’s why we want to move forward to broaden and strengthen the act.” He has more plans for the Hip Hop Caucus beyond election season, including a continued focus on civil rights along with healthcare and tax reform. To accomplish these goals, the population must engage, and the easiest way to do that is at the polls. This is why citizens must work to bring the Voting Rights Act back to life.

Getty Image

In a pair of interviews last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it very clear that she believes a Donald Trump presidency would be disastrous to the Court. Ginsburg noted that three of the sitting justices are getting up there in age (Ginsburg herself is 83, Kennedy 80, and Breyer 78), which suggests that the next president will be making Supreme Court appointments beyond that of who will fill the late Justice Scalia’s empty seat.

In her chambers on Thursday, Ginsburg told the Associated Press,”It’s likely that the next president, whoever she will be, will have a few appointments to make.” When asked about the possibility of a Trump presidency, she replied, “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”

She told the New York Times a day later, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.” She continued, “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She also joked that her late husband, who passed away in 2010, would have said, “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.'”

The Supreme Court, which currently has only eight members, read decisions on many important cases this spring before breaking for summer recess. In a matter of months, the Court upheld a woman’s right to choose in a landmark abortion case, upheld a gun ban on convicted domestic abusers, upheld the affirmative action policy at the University of Texas (yet again), and blocked President Obama’s immigration plan. The next president will likely determine the composition of the Supreme Court for many years to come.

Getty Image

Donald Trump criticized Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Tuesday for voicing her opinion about his candidacy for President. Trump called Ginsburg’s statements “highly inappropriate” and suggested she owes an apology to the other Supreme Court justices in a phone interview with the New York Times.

“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” Mr. Trump told the Times. “I think it’s a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

His comment follows Ginsburg’s candid response to the idea of his winning the presidency in a pair of interviews last week. The justice told the Associated Press she “[didn’t] want to think about” the possibility of a Trump presidency, then doubled down on those sentiments a day later to the New York Times, stating, “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president.”

“That she should be saying that?” Trump asked the Times. “It’s so beneath the court for her to be making statements like that. It only energizes my base even more. And I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible.” According to the principle of Separation of Powers, he may have a point. Can you remember ever hearing a Supreme Court justice speak this way about a candidate?

(Via New York Times)

Getty Image

Donald Trump and Ruth Bader Ginsberg have been duking it out in the press all week. It started when Ginsberg gave a pair of interviews late last week. Ginsberg told the Associated Press she didn’t “even want to think about” the possibility of Trump becoming president; and she told the New York Times how she couldn’t “imagine what the country would be” if he was to serve as commander in chief. She pressed the issue again Monday, telling CNN Trump was a “faker.” “He has no consistency about him,” she said. “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”

Trump told the New York Times Tuesday that Ginsberg’s comments were “highly inappropriate.” He called for her resignation and claimed she owes the rest of the court an apology. Galvanized by a Times editorial claiming “Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Trump has doubled down on his call for Ginsberg to resign from the court, tweeting Wednesday morning that “her mind is shot.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan took a shot at the justice as well, telling Jake Tapper Tuesday night, “I find it very peculiar, and I think it’s out of place.” He did not, however, call for her resignation. Not this time.

Getty Image

The war of words between Donald Trump and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg keeps chugging on. It does seem there is a new Trump feud every week, but this time, the New York Post is getting involved.

Earlier this week, when propositioned on the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency, she responded, “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”

The Notorious RBG has been known for being blunt, but it was a bit out of character for a justice to be this critical of a potential nominee. For his part, Trump was having none of it, calling out Ginsburg and asking for her resignation. Ginsburg may have opened a can of worms with her comments, with both sides of the aisles lambasting her. House Speaker Paul Ryan found her comments “peculiar” and a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide felt she went a bit too far:

The New York Post, never one to be subtle with headlines, chimed in on the situation with a Star Wars theme:

On Thursday, though, Ginsburg expressed regret over her comments, saying it’s not a justice’s place to comment on a candidate who’s running for office:

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

It’s been a busy week for Ginsburg, as both her comments condemning Trump and expressing regret are both a bit out of place.

(Via The New York Post & CNN)

Getty Image

Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump has been … less than clear on what policies he actually believes in and plans to implement should he be elected president. Luckily, he’s got VP pick Mike Pence to make life under a Trump presidency clear and it’s scary as all hell. The Indiana governor said that Trump’s reign would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that made abortion legal in all 50 states.

Pence was outlining the stakes of the current election during a town hall speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His comments came after he pointed out that the next POTUS will likely appoint multiple Supreme Court justices, determining the ideological bent of the Court for the foreseeable future.

“I’m pro-life and I don’t apologize for it,” he told the crowd, according to the Los Angeles Times. “We’ll see Roe vs. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.”

Prior to his presidential run, Trump was pretty liberal with regards to abortion rights. However, his recent comments on the subject show that he probably wouldn’t stand in the way of Pence’s plan.

“While we’re choosing a president for the next four years, this next president will make decisions that will impact our Supreme Court for the next 40,” Pence said. “Go tell your neighbors and your friends, for the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of sanctity of life, for the sake of our 2nd Amendment, for the sake of all our other God-given liberties, we must insure the next president appointing justices to the Supreme Court is Donald Trump.”

(Unrelated reminder that Pence oversaw the first of the discriminatory “Religious Freedom” laws in the country.)

Pence may not realize it, but he’s making the case for hesitant liberals and Berniebros to vote for Hillary Clinton. #GirlIGuessImWithHer just got a bit more frantic.

(Via L.A. Times)

Getty Image

Silicon Valley entrepreneur Peter Thiel is currently famous for two reasons. First, he’s partially responsible for the dissolution of Gawker Media and its flagship website, Gawker.com. And second? He happens to be a gay Libertarian who supports Republican nominee Donald Trump’s bid for the White House. As of this morning, however, Thiel’s name is now famous for a third reason — one with important connections to his vocal (and financial) support of Trump, and former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s still-vacant seat.

Yes, that’s right. Thiel is Trump’s top choice for the ninth seat on the Supreme Court of the United States if the general election goes his way. Or at least that’s according to Thiel himself, whose private boasting was relayed to the Huffington Post by two anonymous sources — one with “close to the PayPal co-founder” who claims “Thiel has told friends” all about the Donald’s intention to nominate him, and another “close to Trump” who suggests the Republican nominee “deeply loves Peter Thiel” and often talks about the potential nomination.

Then again, that second source “has not spoken to Trump directly about Thiel being nominated to the court,” and reminded the Huffington Post that “Trump’s offers often fail to materialize in real life.” As for an official comment from either Trump or Thiel themselves, no such thing has happened yet. However, Trump campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks told the outlet in no uncertain terms, “There is absolutely no truth to this whatsoever.” Thiel’s own official spokeperson, Jeremiah Hall, reiterated his counterpart’s sentiment: “Peter hasn’t had any conversations about a Supreme Court nomination and has no interest in the job.”

Venture capitalism and hedge-fund managing notwithstanding, Thiel graduated from Stanford Law School with a J.D. in 1992 and clerked for the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Yet his law career quickly transformed into derivatives trading, which earned him a great deal of money in the mid ’90s. So yes, Thiel would be the richest Supreme Court nominee in the branch’s history, and he does possess some law experience.

Some.

(Via Huffington Post)

Getty Image

On Friday, the Florida Supreme Court deemed the state’s new death penalty sentencing statute unconstitutional, as reported by BuzzFeed News. Under the law, which was passed earlier this year, a jury could recommend the death penalty if it was favored in a 10-2 vote. The death penalty can now only be recommended if it is decided on unanimously by a jury or by a judge.

The recent decree also overturns the death sentences of Timothy Lee Hurst and Larry Darnell Perry, as their cases will now head back to trial for new sentencing. BuzzFeed News reports that the decisions regarding Hurst’s and Perry’s cases have now put other death penalty trials on hold, as Florida’s legislature and executive branch coordinate how to move forward.

The U.S Supreme Court had originally struck down the state’s jury recommendation for the death penalty in January, saying the death penalty could only happen based on “a judge’s fact finding.” The Florida Supreme Court wrote a jury needed to unanimously agree on the death penalty before it would be considered:

“[W]e hold that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida requires that all the critical findings necessary before the trial court may consider imposing a sentence of death must be found unanimously by the jury…based on Florida’s requirement for unanimity in jury verdicts, and under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that in order for the trial court to impose a sentence of death, the jury’s recommended sentence of death must be unanimous.”

It’s believed that death row inmates whose sentences have not been finalized yet will receive a resentencing opportunity, but it’s not known if the decision will apply retroactively to the nearly 400 other people awaiting execution. Florida has the largest death row in the U.S, and this latest decision may help change that distinction.

(Via BuzzFeed News & WJXT-Jacksonville & BuzzFeed News)

Getty Image

The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year caught the nation off guard, with some writing glowing eulogies for him. But one person who may not be sharing her fond memories of him is Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said she wanted to take a baseball bat to Scalia sometimes.

Scalia was known for his staunch conservative stance with fiery dissents being his calling card. His attitude annoyed many, except for maybe Clarence Thomas who would probably just looked stone-faced while Scalia went into one of his impassioned rants. No one may have been rankled more by his viewpoints than Sotomayor, who generally held viewpoints much more liberal than his. On Monday during a Q&A session at the University of Minnesota, Sotomayor said their differing mindsets could take their toll on her. She admitted, “There are things he’s said on the bench where if I had a baseball bat, I might have used it.”

Those are some pretty harsh words about her former colleague, even as he has passed on to the great beyond. Violent metaphors aside, she said during the session that although Scalia could rile her up, she stressed the importance of having differing viewpoints in the courts:

“If we’ve lost anything, it’s remembering that differences don’t stand, necessarily, on ill will. If you keep that in mind, you can resolve almost any issue, because you can find that common ground to interact with each other.”

In a time when bipartisanship has been thrown completely out the window, it’s refreshing to hear Sotomayor is still up for hearing other’s opinions.

(Via Slate & NPR)

Getty Image

Newfound Trump devotee Ted Cruz doesn’t think the empty Supreme Court Justice seat will be filled anytime soon, at least, unless Donald Trump is doing so. On Wednesday, the Texas senator said the GOP would block any judge that Hillary Clinton would nominate if she is elected president, as reported by The Washington Post.

The selection of the new Supreme Court Justice after the death of Antonin Scalia has been the source of much controversy. That Republicans would want to wait until the election to fill the seat makes sense, but Cruz goes further and seems to think the justices are doing fine with one seat down. He said there’s precedent for having an open seat:

“You know, I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue. There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

Cruz’s position somewhat contradicts other GOP lawmakers. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley says it would be counterproductive for Republicans to stonewall a Clinton appointment. However, Trump hasn’t made it easy for down-ballot Republicans — mostly those who have endorsed him — to win their respective races. And if the Democrats earn the majority on Election Day and Hillary Clinton wins, SCOTUS could easily see its first liberal Supreme Court majority since the 1970s.

(Via The Washington Post)

Getty Image

Despite Republican legislators’ continued threats to block the appointment of a ninth Supreme Court justice, the highest court in the land still has its work cut out for it. This includes its decision to hear a case involving discriminatory bathroom bills barring transgender persons from using public bathrooms in federally-funded schools and elsewhere, which were overturned by the Obama Administration via a complex legal maneuver involving Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. However, instead of taking on every single instance of a bill’s implementation and its being banned by the U.S. Justice Department, the Supreme Court is focusing on a case from Virginia.

According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court will hear a case involving Gavin Grimm (who was born female), Gloucester High School in southeastern Virginia, and opponents of the Department of Education’s peculiar enforcement against anti-transgender bathroom access bills:

The legal question in the case is whether the Obama administration was entitled to interpret a regulation under Title IX, a 1972 law that bans discrimination “on the basis of sex” in schools that receive federal money, as banning discrimination based on gender identity.

In Grimm’s case, Gloucester High originally let him use the bathroom of his choice, but rule changes approved by the school board and an ensuing court battle launched the matter into the national spotlight. So much, in fact, that the Supreme Court will now decide the fate of this young man’s public bathroom access and — considering the use of the Title IX provision — whether or not other transgender students and individuals can use the public restrooms of their choice.

(Via New York Times)