Women’s eNews has posted some commentary on the concerns shared by many women of Color over the nomination of Roberts to succeed the late Chief Justice Rehnquist. (This ‘article’ has actually been circulating through emails and the blogosphere for awhile.) The confirmation hearings of Roberts have been pushed back until next Monday, not that it allays the serious concerns many of us have over his past records, memos, and such, as an attorney for the Reagan Administration and his personal ideology–which many fear would rule on the bench rather than the Law.
Women of color listen up.
As we focus on our sisters facing tragedy and despair in the hurricane-torn South, we need to remember that another struggle is going on, one that will profoundly influence our ability to eliminate the kind of racial disparities that continue to plague our nation. We are talking about the two vacancies on the Supreme Court.
President Bush has nominated John Roberts, yet another white male conservative, to sit on the highest court in the land. Initially nominated to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, Roberts is now nominated to succeed William Rehnquist, who died over the weekend, as the chief justice on the Court.[…]
Before Bush named Roberts, the public discussion focused on the ethnic and gender identity of a potential Supreme Court nominee. There was widespread talk about whether the nominee would be a white woman or a Latino male, both of which should be on the Court.
But did anyone ever seriously mention a woman of color for the job?
Controversial ideologue Janice Rogers Brown was floated by some extreme conservatives, but she was never a real contender given that her nomination to the Court of Appeals set off a national fight over the filibuster–a time-honored means of challenging the majority party through extended debate–and almost shut-down the U.S. Senate.[…]
Narrowed Search
One obvious explanation for the lack of diverse candidates is that the search was narrowed to people of color who reflect the conservative values promoted by the Bush administration.[…]Roberts’ record on women’s fundamental rights is particularly disturbing.[…]
He opened with the argument that “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” The brief went on to support the “gag rule,” which prohibited doctors and clinic counselors who received federal funding for family planning services from providing women with the full range of information and options regarding their reproductive health.
Equally disturbing, Roberts co-authored an amicus or “friend of the court” brief — which is filed by someone who is not a party to the case–in Bray vs. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic in support of Operation Rescue, a notorious anti-choice group. […]
In the amicus brief and during oral argument, Roberts argued to the Supreme Court that Operation Rescue’s “military-style tactics” used to block women from accessing reproductive-health clinics did not amount to discrimination against women and that a federal remedy under a particular civil rights statute should not be available.
Question of Consequences
[…]The stakes go well beyond women’s rights and reproductive freedom.[…]For instance, in memos written to the attorney general in the early 1980s, he helped develop, support and argue the Reagan administration’s position on severely restricting the circumstances under which minority voters could bring a claim under the Voting Rights Act.
He likewise criticized the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law permitting school districts to deny enrollment to children of undocumented immigrants. He also defended legislation that would have stripped the Supreme Court of its ability to hear cases related to busing and school prayer.
So, where are our voices and our brothers’ voices? Why are African American, Latino and Asian Pacific-American communities silent around this nomination and the Supreme Court?[…]
Advocacy groups from across the board (though still mostly “lefty” orgs of course) have already come forward in their grave concerns over Roberts’ nomination. We’re not as silent as one would think. The Congressional Dems on the Judiciary Committee might make little, if any, “fuss” over Roberts during the confirmation hearings, but several of those on the outside–such as the Dems’ neglected voting base–won’t be so sheepish and passive on this issue thankfully.
He likewise criticized the Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law permitting school districts to deny enrollment to children of undocumented immigrants.
I know this is going to light up this group, but:
Why should a school district be forced to finance the education of children whose presence in this country is the result of a criminal act? Instead, why shouldn’t these children and their parents (one of whom had to show up to register the child) be rounded up and sent to Mexico to be educated by their taxpayers?
As far as why didn’t the President nominate a woman of color (and why is that less offensive than calling such a person a “colored woman”?), from what I read in this article the main reason seems to be that he can’t find one whose judicial philosophies accord with his and that will clear the confirmation process. So it would be as much the Congress’ fault as his. Do you think this complaint would be as strong if he had nominated a white male who was also a liberal?
Does anyone know what extra duties the Chief Justice has on the Supreme Court that makes having someone of a particular political or social viewpoint in that office an advantage to those who share it?
Bush may nominate a black male or a hispanic female next, but anyone who thinks that this will result in anything but another conservative nominee is urinating into the breeze.
Ron, the Chief Justice assigns who writes majority opinions on each case.
Let’s say that the Chief Justice disagrees with a ruling that the majority of the justices, including Breyer and Scalia, are in favor of. Although the Chief is on the losing side, he can still use his power of assignment to effect the outcome. For example, he might choose to assign writing the majority opinion to Breyer, because (from what he knows of Breyer’s opinion on this case) he thinks Breyer will write a very narrow opinion that won’t have broad application. Or me might choose to give it to Scalia, because he thinks Scalia will write a broad opinion that will only attrack a 5-4 majority – or even a split majority – making it a weaker precident than the 7-2 majority a more compromising judge’s majority opinion could have attracted. It’s a subtle power, but it can definitely make a difference.
* * *
First of all, most illegal immigrant families pay US taxes. In fact, they add more to the pot than legal families at the same income level do, because they pay Social Security but never collect it.
Second of all, the schools are not equipted to act as the INS; they don’t have the personell or the training to arrest people, nor cells to hold them in.
Third, all your proposal would actually do is deny undocumented children public education (because immigrants would soon learn to not even send their kids to school, so no one would be caught at school and deported). This is unconstitutional, because it denies undocumented kids their 14th amendment equal protection rights. To quote the Supreme Court:
Fourth, punishing children for something utterly beyond their control is unjust.
And fifth, because to deliberately create a class of children with no education whatsoever is incredibly stupid policy. With no education at all, those kids are likely to be low earners, possibly low enough to be forced into crime. Crime aside, however, the US benefits by having every resident (legal or not) as educated as possible, because more education means (on average) higher incomes which means (on average) higher tax receipts.
There are more reasons, but that’s a start.
Sorry for the thread drift.
We have an enormous dependency on the Mexican labor market in the farm industry all over the United States and vice versa. Nothing is going to be done about it anytime soon.
In the book “Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor on the American Black Market,” Eric Schlosser argues convincingly that black market labor by undocumented immigrants saves the average American household $50 a year in produce costs. He also estimates that the black market in drugs and labor makes up as much as twenty percent of the American economy.
Amp, I don’t know if you’ll see this because some time has passed since I’ve posted; had to stop blogging for a while. However:
Yes, those illegal aliens who are employed pay U.S. taxes, although my guess is that given their illegal status, more of them tend to be paid off the books than citizens are and thus pay fewer taxes. They certainly pay sales taxes, etc. the same that U.S. citizens do. But my reference to “their taxpayers” refers not to the illegal aliens themselves, but to the country they are citizens of. Seems to me that Mexican taxpayers should pay to educate Mexican citizens and their children.
Also, since it is illegal for someone who is illegally in this country to have a job here, their payment of taxes on such a job should not gain them any privileges.
I appreciate that the schools are not the INS, and they have no facilities for restraining people, etc. However, I don’t expect them to *be* the INS, I expect them to *call* the INS. A school would simply report that they have a possible illegal alien in the school (depending on what the claim of the child’s birthplace was), and give the name and address to the INS. It’s up to the INS to apprehend and process criminals, not the school. I would not expect the school to discuss the matter with the child or their parents. If someone breaks into my house, I’ll call the cops. If I’m not prepared to deal with an alerted criminal, I’m not about to yell, “Hey, I called the cops!”
That court case was about whether or not the State of Texas could deny a child that was not a citizen an education. To deny a child illegally in the U. S. an education may be unconstitutional, but to deny them residence in the U.S. is not. While the case of whether or not a given child’s parents are in the U.S. legally is under review, I would definitely require that the child be allowed (even required) to attend the local schools. But should the parents lose their case and then be deported, the child would of course accompany them. That doesn’t deny the child an education, since he or she can get that education wherever the child next takes up residence.
If parents then choose to illegally stay in the U.S and to then not to send their child to school, the denial of education would be an act of the parents, not the state. It cannot be unconstitutional for the state to enforce a constitutional law. It was the parent’s choice to commit a crime; if they choose to deprive their children of an education in order to mask their crime, it is an additional crime that is their choice and their responsibility, not the state’s. When people make choices, they have the responsibility to at least attempt to forsee consequences and take them into consideration.
The undesirability of punishing children for an act not of their doing is certainly a valid concern. So is the issue of creating an uneducated “underclass”. While the responsibility of doing that will belong to the childrens’ parents, it is the American citizen who will suffer the consequences. However, I view that as a short-term problem, that will be solved when the U.S. secures it’s borders against all but legal entrants and seeks out and deports all illegal aliens. Note that I’m not saying that we should ban immigration; we should encourage it on the basis of whatever immigration policy is put together by the government (and on the basis of the opinion of the electorate as to what that policy should be). We already have a “guest worker” program for highly skilled laborers (H-1B visas), so there’s no reason to not have one for unskilled workers. Now, why we should have a policy that says, “You’re good enough to come here to work, but not to become a citizen” is a question for another day. But we have it now, already.
We have immigration law. There is a class of criminals that for various reasons are violating it. Some of them are doing so for economic reasons; some for somewhat mundane criminal reasons (drug smuggling, etc.), and some quite possibly some for terroristic reasons (the number of illegal aliens from countries condemned as sponsors of terror has been increasing). We should enforce our laws. If the law needs change, then use the democratic process to change them, but until then they need to be vigorously enforced.
And one other thing: I’d change Amendment XIV, Clause 2, as follows, adding the text between the asterisks:
“All persons born *to at least one parent who is a citizen of the United States* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
That would mean that a child born to a pair of illegal aliens would not be a citizen of the United States (and would also mean that a child born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen would automatically be a citizen, which I don’t think is the case right now). This would remove one of the factors encouraging people to sneak across our borders. It would also put us in line with many other countries, who don’t automatically grant citizenship to every child born in their country. People who break American law should not gain a legal advantage thereby. Lawbreaking should not be rewarded.