As SCOTUS considers porn access, an argument on why it's bad for society
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
The plot to destroy Black political power
Get ready for the rage: The conservative majority on the Supreme Court looks likely to gut the last remaining parts of the Voting Rights Act. Prompted by a Black conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court will consider in October a question that answers itself — whether it is wrong to stop openly racist tactics in drawing congressional districts. Even if the right-wing justices manage to close their eyes to the racial politics involved, they will feel the heat and hear the explosive impact of the backlash to a one-sided ruling. The fuse will be lit in several Republican-controlled states, largely in the South, as white politicians begin diluting votes in Black-majority districts to silence Black voices in Congress. Deep-red state legislatures — think of South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi — will be free to demolish their Black-majority congressional districts. Those white-majority, Trump-backing state legislatures aim to bring an end to the careers of several Black Democrats in Congress, such as Reps. Cleo Fields (D-La.), Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). As a purely political exercise, Trump and his Republican allies have wanted to eliminate these districts for years, because Black voters are key to the Democratic Party's congressional strength. The Voting Rights Act allows for federal courts to look for racial damage done by gerrymandering districts. In the case now before the high court, involving redistricting in Louisiana, the state was forced to add a second Black-majority district. A federal court ruled that, with 33 percent of the state being Black, it was wrong for only one of its six congressional districts to be majority Black. But that led to a lawsuit over the new map. Along the lines of Thomas's recent call for a total end to the Voting Rights Act, the challengers contend that the law — which was created to protect equal voting rights for Black Americans — now prohibits the court from stopping white Republicans from playing politics and crushing Black power as a proportional representation of a state's racial makeup. Thomas makes the case that attention to 'race-based' construction of congressional districts is out of touch with recent history. He argues that 'specific identified instances' of racial bias, including violent voter suppression, are now distant and amount to relics of the nation's past. Last week, a federal appeals court disagreed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Louisiana's congressional district map 'packed' and 'cracked' Black populations to limit their political power. The ruling stated there are 'decades of binding precedent' under the 15th Amendment allowing Congress to contest racial bias in redistricting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was written in response to the nation's long history of keeping political power in white hands. Even after Black men gained the right to vote, it was common for that vote to be suppressed through violence. For perspective, South Carolina is 26 percent Black and 67 percent white. But white-majority Republican congressional districts are 86 percent of South Carolina's seven congressional districts. Only one of seven districts has a majority of Democrats and Black voters — Clyburn's district. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on racial redistricting on Oct. 15 — early enough for a decision that could affect the 2026 midterms. If the Black vote is diluted, the Democratic Party's ability to win seats in Congress shrinks, increasing Republican chances of retaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2026. That would keep Trump from becoming a lame duck facing a divided Congress. The Republicans' goal is to maintain majorities in Congress for Trump's last two years in the White House. Then Republicans can appoint more judges to issue more rulings that further weaken Democrats. The downward spiral for Black political power will go on and on. Trump is not hiding his interest in the outcome of gerrymandering efforts in Texas. 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats,' Trump told CNBC earlier this month. 'We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas … and we are entitled to five more seats.' Excuse me, Mr. President? Neither you nor the Republican Party is entitled to any seats. Those seats belong to Americans of all colors and parties. Texas Republicans' threats to send law enforcement to forcibly return Texas Democratic legislators to the state capitol to provide a quorum for passing gerrymandered maps are a sideshow. They distract from the real effect that racially-designed gerrymandering can have on race relations and politics for decades to come. Comedian Dave Chappelle famously called Trump 'an honest liar.' In the fight over Texas redistricting, the 'honest liar' is saying that the people looking at redistricting's racial impact are themselves racist. Don't let Trump or his partisans on the high court fool you. Racial justice in Congress is at stake. Democrats will have to fight fire with fire to prevent Trump from diminishing Black voting power. Democrats owe that much to Black voters, who have carried them to electoral victories over the last 60 years. They owe it to the memory of the brave people who marched, were beaten and even died to demand voting rights only 60 years ago.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
LILLEY: Here's the legal reason the Air Canada strike will only end at the table
The Air Canada strike is only going to end one way: With a negotiated settlement. The union is defiant, Canadians love to hate Air Canada so much of the public will back the union, and Patty Hajdu's attempt to force the workers back on the job was an illegal and unconstitutional move. That's right, the government was going against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or at least how some liberal judges on the Supreme Court interpreted it back in 2015. Back-to-work legislation or using Section 107 of the Canadian Labour Code simply won't cut it anymore. 'The right to strike is not merely derivative of collective bargaining, it is an indispensable component of that right. It seems to me to be the time to give this conclusion constitutional benediction,' Justice Rosalie Abella wrote in a 2015 decision. And with those words, Abella upended decades of Canadian jurisprudence that had multiple times said that there was no Charter-protected right to strike. The case, called Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, challenged two provincial laws including one that declared some government workers to be engaged in essential services and not allowed to strike. In her long and rambling decision, Abella cited British labour practices from the 1700s, British and American labour law, German labour law, and even the European Social Charter to make her political rather than legal case. Even her phrase that 'It seems to me to be the time …' shows this was a personal and political decision rather than one based in Canadian law. In case after case, the Supreme Court had found there was no constitutional right to strike and cautioned against courts imposing strict and rigid laws on a delicate process. In a 2002 decision involving striking Pepsi workers, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote of the need for courts to be cautious. 'Judging the appropriate balance between employers and unions is a delicate and essentially political matter,' she wrote. 'This is the sort of question better dealt with by legislatures than courts. Labour relations is a complex and changing field, and courts should be reluctant to put forward simplistic dictums.' As recently as 2011, the Supreme Court had rejected that there was a Charter-protected constitutional right to strike. In 2015, led by Abella, the majority on the court, including McLachlin, found that the Charter's guarantee of the freedom of association in section 2(d) included the right to strike and threw away all precedents. 'The majority has so inflated the right to freedom of association that its scope is now wholly removed from the words of s. 2(d),' the dissenting justices wrote in response to Abella's decision. So, although many don't realize this, tools that governments once used, such as back-to-work legislation, to end disruptive strikes like Air Canada's current situation are now null and void. Their validity is being fought in the courts and will eventually come down on the side of the unions. It was for this reason that Ontario Premier Doug Ford used the notwithstanding clause when introducing back-to-work legislation for education workers in 2022. By recognizing the Charter right to strike, Abella took away those tools. We will likely soon find the minister of labour's ability to order people into arbitration and to 'maintain or secure industrial peace' won't be considered constitutional either. Which means that Air Canada and CUPE, representing the striking flight attendants, will continue to battle it out in the court of public opinion. Whichever one can gain the biggest PR win will win at the negotiating table. This is essentially a political and public relations war between a company and employees, which is why previous court judgments had recommended against the court getting involved in such disputes. If only the majority in 2015 had listened to their own precedent instead of Abella's flight of fancy.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appeal reignites push to repeal Ohio's same-sex marriage ban
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — A push to repeal Ohio's same-sex marriage ban is gaining urgency after former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis asked the U.S. Supreme Court last week to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage. Davis, who gained national attention a decade ago for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is appealing a ruling that requires her to pay $360,000 in damages and legal fees to a couple she denied in 2015. In her petition to the high court, Davis argues the First Amendment shields her from personal liability and is calling on the justices to overturn Obergefell, which she claims was 'egregiously wrong' and a threat to religious freedom. Out in Ohio: 10 years after Obergefell, advocates warn marriage equality still at risk 'This flawed opinion has produced disastrous results,' her legal filing states, 'leaving individuals like Davis finding it increasingly difficult to participate in society.' This marks the first time since Obergefell was decided that the Supreme Court has been formally asked to reconsider marriage equality. The move has alarmed LGBTQ+ advocates in Ohio, where a 2004 constitutional amendment still defines marriage as only between a man and a woman — language that remains on the books despite being unenforceable under current law. A preemptive strike Ohio Equal Rights, a grassroots organization, is collecting signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot that would repeal the state's same-sex marriage ban. 'Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides this time, attacks on our rights will keep coming,' the group said in a statement. 'We're fighting to repeal Ohio's gay marriage ban so marriage is protected here — no matter what happens federally.' Lis Regula, executive co-chair of Ohio Equal Rights, said in a previous NBC4 interview that the effort is about ensuring state protections remain in place, especially if Obergefell is overturned. Ramaswamy sets Ohio record with $9 million for governor's race; Acton at $1.4 million 'Just in case Obergefell falls, we want to not have that trigger language in Ohio's constitution anymore,' Regula told NBC4 in a previous interview. 'It's not right, knowing all the advantages and all the privileges that come with being able to be married to someone, that marriage should be only for certain people and not for others.' The concern is not unfounded. In 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that the court should also reconsider other substantive due process rulings, including Obergefell. Legislative backing Democratic lawmakers at the Ohio Statehouse have echoed these concerns. In June, they introduced a resolution to place their own marriage equality amendment on the 2026 ballot. A similar effort last year, to align Ohio law with the federal protections of Obergefell, stalled in committee. Ballot strategy and hurdles Ohio Equal Rights is also collecting signatures for a separate amendment that would add broad anti-discrimination protections to the state constitution — covering race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and more. The group initially sought to combine the marriage and discrimination initiatives into one amendment, but the Ohio Ballot Board voted in July to split them into two. Ohio bill inspired by leaf blower theft aims to revise state's definition of burglary To qualify for the 2026 ballot, the organization must gather signatures from at least 10% of voters from the last gubernatorial election, spread across at least 44 of Ohio's 88 counties. All signatures must be submitted and verified by the secretary of state at least 65 days before the election. If successful, the proposals would follow in the footsteps of other constitutional amendments in recent years. In 2023, voters approved Issues 1 and 2, establishing the right to abortion and legalizing recreational marijuana, each with around 57% support. Another amendment, Issue 1 in 2024, aimed at changing how political districts are drawn, failed by a 53-47 margin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
