Supreme Court’s War on Democracy

Exclusive: The U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing majority is a serial killer of American democracy first Bush v. Gore, then Citizens United, now gutting the Voting Rights Act but another part of this crime story is the Right’s grotesque last stand for white supremacy, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Whatever legalistic wording or tortured logic is applied, the ugly truth is that the narrow right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is at war with American democracy. Or, put a bit differently, these justices don’t believe that a democratic judgment relying on black and brown people should be respected.

The five Republicans on the Court know full well that by striking down the preclearance requirement before electoral changes can be made in states and districts with a documented history of racial discrimination, they are inviting a wave of legal impediments to minority voting. The same five justices also knew that in 2010 their Citizens United ruling would open the floodgates for mostly right-wing billionaires to inundate political campaigns with misleading propaganda.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts. (Official Photo)

And, the stage for this sustained judicial assault on democracy was set when the predecessor to the Roberts Court, the Rehnquist Court, intervened to stop the counting of votes in Florida and to effectively anoint Republican George W. Bush the President, though he lost the national popular vote and would have lost the swing state of Florida to Democrat Al Gore if all ballots legal under state law were counted. [See Neck Deep for details.]

The Bush v. Gore case was the first clear indicator that the modern Republican Right was determined to use the Supreme Court as a weapon to negate democracy and assure continued GOP control of the U.S. government. The Right was determined to assert and maintain its power by almost any means possible.

Though Bush’s presidency turned out to be a disaster for the United States and the world, it was a godsend to the Court’s right-wing majority. Bush was able to replace two Republican justices who participated in appointing him William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O’Connor with right-wingers, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Those two Bush appointments moved the Court even further to the Right and gave the Republicans hope that even amid the nation’s demographic changes, which were reflected in the election of Barack Obama in 2008 as the nation’s first African-American president, there was still a way for right-wing and white power to be sustained.

The Citizens United case of 2010 was the next blow, delivered by the Roberts Court, making possible unlimited spending from “dark pools” of cash to propagandize the American electorate. That surge of right-wing money combined with progressive disappointment with the first two years of Obama’s presidency helped elect rabidly right-wing Republican majorities in the House and in state capitals around the country.

Given that 2010 was a census year, Republicans were empowered to gerrymander congressional seats to concentrate liberal voters in a few isolated districts and arrange for solid conservative majorities in most others. (The redistricting effectively guaranteed a continued Republican majority in the House even though Democratic candidates received about one million more votes nationwide in 2012.)

Voter Suppression

The outcome of Election 2010 also enabled Republican-controlled statehouses to begin a coordinated strategy to suppress the votes of blacks, Hispanics, the poor and the young seen as predominantly Democratic voters by requiring photo IDs, tightening eligibility and reducing voting hours.

That plan, however, ran afoul of the Voting Rights Act, especially in Old Confederacy states like Texas which were covered by the preclearance requirement of the law. Using the Act, the Justice Department was able to beat back most of the attempts to infringe on suffrage and minorities provided key votes to reelect President Obama in 2012.

So, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which had been reauthorized overwhelmingly by Congress in 2006) became the next target of the Roberts Court. In a historic ruling on Tuesday, the five right-wing justices Roberts, Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas gutted the law by ripping out the preclearance procedure.

The five justices barely bothered with any logical or constitutional argument. Their central point was to publish charts that showed that black voting in areas under special protection of the Voting Rights Act was generally equal to or even higher than the percentages of white voters.

But all that did was show that the law was working, not that those areas would not again resort to trickery once preclearance was removed. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in a dissent, there was no justification for the Court to overrule the judgment of Congress, reaffirmed only seven years ago.

“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” Ginsburg wrote.

There also is no doubt that the Constitution grants Congress the explicit power to enact legislation to protect the voting rights of people of color. The Fifteenth Amendment states that “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It adds: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

The amendment was ratified in 1870 during Reconstruction, meaning that many whites from Southern states and other racist jurisdictions never accepted its legitimacy. Once Reconstruction ended in 1877, the whites of the Old Confederacy reasserted political control and deployed a wide array of tactics to deter many blacks from voting.

It was not until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s that the federal government reasserted its determination to guarantee justice for African-Americans, including the right to vote through the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Because the national Democratic Party took the lead in pushing these changes, many Southern whites switched their allegiance to the Republican Party.

This white backlash gave impetus to the elections of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, all of whom appealed to white voters with coded racially tinged language. The Republican strategy also included putting like-minded justices on the Supreme Court with an eye toward rolling back the civil rights gains of the 1960s.

To make its appeals to racism less offensive, the Right also began cloaking itself in the nation’s founding mythology, dressing up renewed appeals for “states’ rights” in a fabricated historical narrative that the key Framers of the Constitution the likes of George Washington and James Madison despised the idea of a strong central government when nearly the opposite was true. [See’s “The Right’s Dubious Claim to Madison.”]

Rebranding the Racists

What the Right actually was doing with its bogus history was enabling today’s neo-Confederates to rebrand themselves, from the overt appeals to racism symbolized by the Stars and Bars by substituting the Revolutionary War banner of a coiled snake and “Don’t Tread on Me” motto. Yet, despite the more popular imagery of 1776 over 1860, the philosophy remained the same.

This cosmetic transformation of the Right from its crude allusions to the Old Confederacy to its more palatable references to the Revolutionary War surfaced most clearly after the election of Barack Obama in 2008. The Right recognized that the demographic shifts that made his election possible were also dooming the future of white supremacy.

So, the Tea Party invoking the Right’s carefully constructed founding myth rallied to “take our country back,” aided immensely by massive funding from the Koch Brothers and other right-wing billionaires.

The Right’s current message remains wrapped in the word “liberty” much as that word was used by some of American slaveholders in the nation’s early years and by the Confederates during the Civil War. But the Right’s message is really all about the “liberty” of white Americans to reign over — and rein in — non-white Americans.

It is not even clear that many right-wing white Americans believe that blacks and other non-whites deserve citizenship, a position that many in the Tea Party appear to share with their forebears some of the slaveholding Founders, the “nullificationists” of the pre-Civil War South, the Confederates, and the Ku Klux Klan.

That sentiment remained at the heart of the Jim Crow laws during Southern segregation denying citizenship rights to blacks despite the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments; it can be seen in the Right’s longstanding refusal to grant congressional voting rights to District of Columbia residents, many of whom are black and who face “taxation without representation”; it is reflected in the Right’s obsession with the conspiracy theory about Obama being born in Kenya; and it fires up Republican opposition to immigration reform since it would permit some 11 million undocumented immigrants — mostly Hispanic — to eventually gain citizenship.

It is this fear of real democracy with its genuine promise of one person, one vote that has now motivated the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority to give America’s neo-Confederates one more shot at reversing the nation’s acceptance of racial equality at the ballot box.

If the civil rights era starting in the 1960s was a kind of Second Reconstruction forcing fairness and decency down the throats of resentful Southern whites then what Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito have done could be viewed as the start of a Second Jim Crow era.

After the Voting Rights Act was gutted on Tuesday, some officials from the Old Confederacy immediately rubbed their hands with glee, anticipating how they could minimize the number of black and brown voters in future elections and maximize the number of white Republican members of Congress.

“With today’s decision,” said Greg Abbott, the attorney general of Texas, “the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

14 comments for “Supreme Court’s War on Democracy

  1. MIKE
    June 28, 2013 at 18:36

    The United States is NOT a Democracy! It is a Constitutional Republic which means rule by law, not by men!
    A Democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority where 51% of the population can take away the rights of the other 49%.
    No educated person wants a democracy because a democracy always end in the
    bankrupting of the economy because when the people realize they can have anything they want they will bankrupt the nation, as is happening NOW!

  2. Joe sung
    June 27, 2013 at 19:28

    It’s called a republic. Robert Parry does not understand what the United States Government is.

    This will shock a few people here including Mr Parry but the USA is not a Democracy.. and thank God it is not. We are a constitutional republic which operates in direct contradiction to a democracy. The last thing the founding fathers wanted was a democracy. Why on earth would you want to give uneducated easily manipulated, uninformed individuals the same responsibility as educated strong willed informed individuals? You wouldn’t want to, not if you are a sane person. The founding fathers understood this. Why on earth should a fool’s vote count as much as a wise mans vote?

    Representation,which includes the electoral college, was created to minimize the degree of manipulation the politicians had over the populace. Contrary to the beliefs of almost every American(even historians who should know better) the job of a representative is NOT to do the will of the people. In fact it’s often the opposite of that. A representative’s job is to look out for the BEST INTERESTS of the people. That is a mammoth distinction. We elect people smarter than the populace. We elect them to make the important decisions because they are smarter than the populace. We elect leaders to lead not to take a popular vote. If that were the case, there would be no reason at all for representation. We would just have a popular vote on every issue.

    That’s the way it used to work and that’s the way it’s supposed to work under a constitutional republic. The reason this planet is a cesspool of perversion, sex, criminality and violence and is on the verge of WW3, is because it no longer works the way it was designed to work. Somewhere along the way the people were duped into believing that America is a Democracy and the results of such manipulation is the current state of affairs where special interests have taken over the government.

    The Government no longer represents us, it represents banks, corporations, institutions and foreign interests.. and you have “Democracy” to thank for that. The politicians and special interests in charge love democracy because it enables them to get what they want through manipulating the public opinion.

    Until the Robert Parry’s of the world figure this out, We are absolutely screwed.

  3. Squidward
    June 27, 2013 at 11:16

    The simple fact is: We need to GET RID OF (i.e., FIRE) the Democraps on the Supreme Court. We need to GET RID OF (i.e., FIRE) the Republicraps on the Supreme Court. We need to GET RID OF (i.e., FIRE) the Liberals and so-called “Conservatives”.

    We need to install STRICT CONSTITUTIONALISTS in the Supreme Court, instead of these ideologue activists that we’re stuck with now. Maybe, just maybe THEN we’ll see legal decisions that make sense.

  4. Ocko
    June 27, 2013 at 11:08

    Since Senator Kennedy opened the floodgate for third World immigration, the culture of America is changing rapidly to a third world country. Their Democracy is a joke and so America’s is becoming too.

    Democracy is a flower of white culture suited to mature and educated white people. Third World races have a very different culture. They are mostly catch as catch can, get the most for themselves. That is contrary to white culture who favor the common good.

    Corruption is a typical sign of third world ‘culture’ (and I count Semitic culture to third world culture) and that is what you find in the US.

    If you want to live in a de-mock-crazy like in South-Africa with a genozid on white people, justified by guilt-mongering leftist, you may live in a nightmare. You can see this development in the statistics of crime and compare black-on-white murders, rape etc versus white on black crimes.

    Facts most likely disturb ideologues, that is why they have to be denigrated and oppressed.

    Democracy is only for white people, as it is our culture, third world worlders have theirs which you can observe in black cities like Detroit, Chicago, St.Louis, New Orleans etc.

    Never wondered why others races want to live in white neighborhoods and not in black, yellow,red or brown neighborhoods?

  5. Ricki Ricardo
    June 26, 2013 at 23:41

    Forget it. The die is cast the US has chosen its course and now it must follow the path to its end. Accept it and leave. For your children’s sake. America has continuously rejected “right” in favour of expedience and you are seeing the result. This train has to run its course.

  6. Ralph Crown
    June 26, 2013 at 14:02

    There’s one “important, doable change” easier than term limits.

    Impeach Scalia. Now.

    • Frances in California
      June 26, 2013 at 15:12

      Yes, Ralph! You’re absolutely right! What forms do we file and where? Do we need an investigator? Will an independent one be sufficient? Does a legal person need to be “in charge”? Can Congress do anything . . . wait . . . what am I SAYING?! We already know the answer to that last. . .

  7. gregorylkruse
    June 26, 2013 at 11:47

    This proves the old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same”. You would think that Clarence Thomas would have a change of heart.

  8. alfavil
    June 26, 2013 at 10:36

    This country is well on her way to a right wing constitutional dictatorship at the hands of Republican traitors to what the true Constitution–not their degenerate version of it–claims as rights for all. Republicans have elevated spin, scam, bait and switch to the highest level of political weaponry. I really do not see a happy ending for all of us.

    • Squidward
      June 27, 2013 at 11:08

      Oh, that’s rich. A Democrap Congress, a Dempcrap sorry excuse for a President, and a bunch of left-wingers on the Supreme Court who uphold garbage like the Democrap-drafted Obamacare fiasco, and you have the nerve to sit there and say the SC is a tool of the Republicraps? Get real.

  9. Republicult
    June 25, 2013 at 23:42

    This is truly a heinous, barbaric decision. The words, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote…shall not be denied or abridged” appears in FOUR separate amendments in the Constitution. There is a part of me that wants to scream at these 5 Supreme Courtesans as well as all other republicans, “What part of ‘The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged’ don’t you understand?!” And you’d think by now most Americans would understand and accept that EVERY citizen has these Constitutional rights. Nothing in the Constitution allows any level of government to restrict the right to vote, but the courts are fond of conjuring up rulings to allow exactly that. Well, as we also learned painfully in other recent Supreme Court decisions regarding Bush vs. Gore, money vs. free speech, and corporate vs. personal rights, the words of the Constitution mean ONLY what the current court wants them to mean. Thus I’m certain as can be that this court will allow the disenfranchisement of voters to continue.
    …Unless some important, but doable changes are made to the highest court.
    The time has come for one such change…

    TERM LIMITS for the Supreme Court.

    Rewind back to year 2000. Imagine, with a limit of 18 years, both O’Connor and Rehnquist would have been gone before Bush-Gore: The result would likely have been an order from the court: “Florida – you be sure to count ALL votes correctly”, and thus, No Bush. Also, O’Connor would have had to resign under a Democrat! We know that was not to her personal liking, and most importantly nor to her ideological mission, hence her deplorable vote in that case. Scalia and Thomas would be long gone before Citizens United. This country can’t afford to give the likes of O’Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and the other Supreme Courtesans lifetime employment. The cost in lives, treasure, opportunities, and our future has been far too great. We’ve had more than our democracy can bear. Of course if the country liked a justice’s 18 years of service, they could be renominated for another term: Justice Brennan is an example of someone who’d likely have been renominated when his “18 term” was up during the Carter years. And I can’t imagine Scalia or Thomas getting another 18 years to wreck havoc. Furthermore, judges would still be able to “make the tough decisions”, even if their term was 5 minutes – I can’t imagine that the length of a judge’s term would have influenced anyone in this recent decision.

    Slapping a limit of the length of service on The Supreme Court would not likely require a constitutional amendment, whereas leaving their appalling decisions standing seems to mandate attempts to amend the constitution to fix the damage from Citizens United and Buckely Vallejo. Tragically each effort to amend also consumes massive resources and opportunity costs spent just to rectify heinously bad decisions – effort and resources that could be spent elsewhere on our country’s enormous list of problems. All this instead could be rectified by the court itself when filled with a less ideologically obsessed gang of judges.

    There is really nothing wrong with the Constitution. It’s the zealots on the bench with their lifetime employment who are the problem.

    So, lets bring in some new judges, have them revisit and reverse these decisions, so our country can get on becoming a Democracy.

    • Jada Thacker
      June 26, 2013 at 00:02

      “Slapping a limit of the length of service on The Supreme Court would not likely require a constitutional amendment…”

      Unfortunately, it would definitely require a Constitutional amendment. Read Article III.

      • Regina Schulte
        June 26, 2013 at 23:25

        Then, let’s get the ball rolling on it. Time is ‘a wastin’

  10. John Hoctor
    June 25, 2013 at 22:24

    we’re fucked

Comments are closed.