Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Republican-Fascists Politicizing The Judiciary Are What Happens When Republican-Fascists Win Elections

Anyone who has any doubt as to why it is important to elect a Democrat for every office you can vote for should look at the ruling by the crypto-fascist federal judge, Reed O’Connor, blocking Barack Obama's recent policy on providing basic services to transgendered people.  One judge with a Republican-fascist agenda and he's blocked a rule that could provide rights for a beleaguered minority across the country.

O'Connor is, no doubt, the kind of judge a Republican-fascist would like to elevate to the Supreme Court, a George W. Bush appointee, he has shown a willingness to work with politicians for political purposes.  As recently as the end of May, Think Progress named him as part of a plan to resurrect the fascism of Antonin Scalia, using bigotry against LGBT people as a means of making regress.  And it's clear he doesn't care who gets hurt. 

A little over a year ago, Judge Reed O’Connor handed down a surprising decision targeting same-sex partners who wanted time off to care for their sick spouse. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) permits workers to take unpaid leave in order to care for a sick family member. A Department of Labor regulation, promulgated after the Supreme Court forbade the federal government from engaging in marriage discrimination but before this Constitutional guarantee was applied to the states, provided that same-sex couples who were lawfully married in one state could still take advantage of FMLA, even if they resided in a state that did not recognize their marriage.

The same week that this rule was supposed to take effect, however, Judge O’Connor ordered it halted in an opinion accusing the Labor Department of attempting to “unilaterally impose its definition of marriage upon the states.” If an employer wanted to fire a woman because she took a few weeks of unpaid time to be with her dying wife, O’Connor effectively ruled, then that employer should be allowed to do so if the woman lived in the wrong state.

It was a surprising decision, in no small part because O’Connor handed it down just weeks before the Supreme Court held that marriage equality is enshrined in the Constitution — and months after the justices started sending up signals warning lower courts that such a decision was coming. Judge O’Connor halted the regulation by issuing what is known as a “preliminary injunction,” an order that may only be issued if the plaintiffs can demonstrate a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” In March of 2015, no one who had paid a lick of attention to the Supreme Court’s moves on marriage equality could conclude that a challenge to the Labor Department’s regulation was likely to succeed.

Anyone, those who might be gulled by Greens or talked into not voting for Democrats by such, generally affluent, white, straight, lefties who scribble for one of the lefty webazines or websites, shouldn't minimalize the damage even one of these fascists put on the court can do to countless people.  The Republican-fascists have mounted a takeover of courts around the country and their poisonous appointees will be in place for decades to come.   Don't count on the "free press" to fight against that, they've been AOK with it for as long as the fascists have been doing it.  After all, as long as they're allowed to do business in the most profitable way, it's no skin off their nose.  I doubt even any who are gay, at the high, decision-making level, have not had to worry much about who was going to be taking care of a family member.  That's well taken care of for them, they couldn't care less about the class of people who do have to worry about it.    

It should be common practice to note who put judges on benches as the pretense that they are not political has kept media from noting.   The ridiculous mythology of judicial independence has almost never been true, its class, racial, gender, and gender preferences have always been a part of American history.   It veils the reality that who you vote for is far more potent than what that person does while in elective office. 

2 comments:

  1. I hadn't looked into it, but I'm not surprised. I knew the states who brought this case had gone forum shopping. I found it odd the judge issued his ruling on a Sunday, and declared it applicable to the nation.

    I honestly think he overreached (without analyzing the legal issues in any depth at all; I haven't even read the court's opinion), and did it for purely ideological grounds. I'd reached that conclusion before I read anything about him, and all I've read so far is what you quoted.

    And whether the Supremes or the 5th Circuit will do anything about it is dubious. OTOH, the judge enjoined the DOJ from any action whatsoever, so it may be he's reversed just on that overreach.

    One can only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And to your other point: no one pays attention to Federal judges because they aren't Supreme Court Justices (who hear a handful of cases a year, v. a Federal judges docket of thousands), and so the Senate has successfully bottled up Obama's appointments to the lower bench for years.

    But it's not one of the Sainted Nine, so who cares? Well, everybody who needs a case heard in Federal court, that's who. No, you can't replace O'Connor, but you can water him down, even defeat him judicially by appointments to the Appellate Courts.

    But as I say, those ain't the Supremes, so who cares?

    ReplyDelete