The Supreme Court jumped smack dab in the middle of election-year politics by deciding to hear three major cases.
It announced Monday it would decide whether Arizona’s tough anti-immigration law will stand.
Last Friday it said it would rule on a Texas redistricting case that could turn four congressional seats there from Republican to Democrat. And the justices are already expected to rule on the Affordable Care Act by early spring, just as the presidential race reaches fever pitch.
However the court rules on any of these highly political, highly controversial issues, its decisions will be greeted with partisan applause — or brickbats. Whatever the justices decide, the issues will not be resolved.
The Arizona immigration law was greeted by the Obama administration with lawsuits contending Arizona was attempting to override federal immigration law. It is a constitutional principle that federal law trumps state law. The conservative Roberts court, however, is likely to accept some of the states’ rights arguments that Arizona, Alabama, Utah and South Carolina have used in adopting their harsh anti-immigration statutes.
The court has already ruled that an earlier Arizona law imposing harsh penalties on employers who hire undocumented workers is constitutional.
The Texas case involves redistricting maps. The Texas Legislature, dominated by Republicans, had drawn up new congressional districts which, surprise!, protected Republicans. The redistricting was challenged as unfair and a panel of federal judges drew up a new set of maps that increased the number of Hispanics in four districts. As Hispanics tend to vote for Democrats, it is widely assumed that the four districts would elect Democrats for Congress if the maps stand.
If the justices rule, 5-4, in favor of the Republican legislature, the court will be tarred as blatantly partisan. If they uphold the maps drawn by the judges, the shift could be enough to change the complexion of the next Congress.
The court had no choice but to accept the health care case since federal appeals courts have rendered conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of the insurance requirement in the law. However the court rules, the need to rein in the cost of health care and broaden its delivery to those now unserved or underserved will remain unmet.
IT IS AMERICA’S BOAST that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men — a credo that also can be considered to mean laws have fixed meanings which can’t be unmade by partisan politics. But this, of course, is anything but the case, and therein lies the rub. Each of these high profile cases invites a decision skewed by ideological bias; by politics.
It is an invitation the justices will surely accept. The conservatives will be swayed by states’ rights arguments and are likely to agree states have the right to control immigration. The more liberal justices will disagree and declare that immigration law is a federal, not a state, responsibility.
Likewise, the court will divide over the requirement that everyone must have health insurance. It is possible that the issue will be ducked because the requirement doesn’t go into effect until years down the road, but that welcome outcome is not widely predicted now.
The Texas case is pure politics. The best outcome would be the court would go to the heart of the matter and declare gerrymandering unconstitutional and declare voting districts should be drawn by nonpartisan panels, which the high court would then proceed to define and require.
Doing so would be a strong reinforcement of a system ruled by laws rather than men and money.
