Courts peopled by humans with biases and loyalties

Jul 05, 2021 Editorial

Kaieteur News – The New York Times (NYT) editorialized on July 1 that, “The Supreme Court abandons voting rights.” The perception is that the Supreme Court, this final American arbiter of the law and justice, has shredded the landmark 1965 Voting Right Act. The NYT’s position is that the “conservative majority has been dismantling it, piece by piece.” A strong reaction, indeed, with the latest perceived dismantling occurring through conservative justices upholding “two Arizona voting laws despite lower federal courts finding clear evidence that the laws make voting harder for voters of colour.”
“Dismantling” is a strong word to use for court decisions. That the NYT editorial board felt sufficiently alarmed to table that reaction speaks about the fearlessness of American media, and when the NYT noted that all six conservative justices voted to uphold the restrictive Arizona law, that says so much about the confidence of this most influential of U.S. media presences. To go against the Court is unheard of here.
Such a course of action, a pronouncement by a prominent media presence (or others) against a judicial decision by any Guyanese court automatically guarantees harsh denunciations. Meaning, heated denunciations against any who violates what is held as the independence of the judiciary, its sacred nature, and its declared infallibility that condones no criticism, no departure. The battle is joined when those in agreement with favourable local decisions attack anyone expressing dissenting views. Since everything here possesses racial textures, then the ethnicity of judge(s), the political source of their appointments, and the beneficiaries of outcomes become fair game, and subject to the scurrilous, unfounded, and disparaging. Many unprovable scenarios are imagined, more hidden motives dumped on finders of fact, and interpreters of the law.
The courage and confidence to disagree vanish, even when such is bolstered by reality and reason. But judges are humans, not bloodless, disconnected strangers to what we live with, in a roiling divided environment. Expectations are greater in razor thin situations, with much at stake. Disappointments can overwhelm, leading to where the measured is missing, and basic wisdom disintegrating. In this cauldron, one man’s facts are another’s farces. It would be progress to appreciate that which disappoints, stands on solid bases, expressed in tempered voice. When integrity is poisoned by the raw partisan, then intellect is perverted into the unrecognisable.
Further, reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision were quick to come from dissenters across different arenas. From the political fold, President Biden weighed in with: “the court has now done severe damage” (“Supreme Court upholds Arizona voting restrictions” (New York Times July 1)).
The U.S. president went further still with, “After all we have been through to deliver the promise of this nation to all Americans, we should be fully enforcing voting rights laws, not weakening them.” Any reasonable observer would conclude that there is veiled condemnation in President Biden’s use of that work “weakening.” But he didn’t stop there, and continued that, “while this broad assault against voting rights is sadly not unprecedented, it is taking on new forms.” No Guyanese politician ending up on the wrong side of a judicial decision in the local court system (think today’s elections petitions, prior lower and higher court rulings), would dare to go so far. We are so sensitive that all kinds of verbal breakdancing are engaged in to avoid appearing disgusted or, worse still, infuriated. And no leading political figure, no matter how passionate about position, risks bringing down the wrath of the torn local world upon the head.
From academia, Richard L. Hausen, a law professor said, “The court today…makes it harder to prove intentional racial discrimination in passing a voting rule.” And conservative Justice Alito identified five guideposts ranging from restriction and inconvenience, to size of rule voting disparities to impact of such disparities. Liberal Justice Kagan saw those same guide posts of her fellow jurist as “a recipe for voter suppression.” She said something else with significance for Guyana: “Elections are often fought and won at the margins.” We live at some such margins, which is why many tiptoe around suspected judicial bias and loyalty. Often, it is better to get negatives out of the system into the public domain. All are better for it.

Latest News

Courts peopled by humans with biases and loyalties

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Shabazz’s termination remains just the tip of the iceberg

Clarendon College too good for Dolphin as Annai...

Glasgow excited for MLS journey with Chicago Fire

Matthews slams unbeaten 85 as Windies Women...

No room to breathe as five more teams to advance...

Sammy to be appointed as West Indies Senior...

Features/Columnists

The stakes are high in Guyana’s democracy

Let the asylum seekers go: a first step for Venezuela to rebuild relations in the Americas

A leader undresses in public

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Courts peopled by humans with biases and loyalties

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]