Arguably the most active branch of US government began a new year on Monday, as the US Supreme Court returned from its long summer recess to address issues from gay marriage and religious freedom to voting laws and foreign policy.
While a politically deadlocked US Congress is on track for a record dearth of legislation this session and key parts of US President Barack Obama’s domestic policy agenda are on hold while his party fights to stop things getting worse in next month’s midterm elections, the nine justices who meet on the other side of Capitol Hill are the focus of some of the biggest political fights in the nation.
Though the 2013-2014 court term saw an unusually high number of unanimous rulings, it will be remembered for a clutch of controversial decisions that divided the bench along ideological lines: the Hobby Lobby decision that allowed employers to withhold certain types of contraception as part of health insurance; banning buffer zones that protect women seeking abortions from protesters; and removing caps on political contributions for the very rich.
Illustration: Mountain People
So high are the stakes in 2014-2015 that 81-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the four reliably liberal justices who are currently in the minority on the bench, recently told interviewers she could not resign because Obama’s weak grip on the senate meant the balance of power could shift even further to the right if she did.
“If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court,” Ginsburg told Elle magazine.
GAY MARRIAGE
The Supreme Court signaled a sweeping expansion of gay rights across the US on Monday by declining to hear appeals from five states seeking to uphold bans on same-sex marriage and setting a course for legalization in a majority of states.
The court’s unexpected decision to slam the door on pending appeals means there will be no imminent ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage nationwide. However, it had the dramatic effect of clearing a way for its rapid expansion to 30 states and the District of Columbia.
RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
One of the first cases the court is to hear is on the subject of religious tolerance, which was the subject of one of its most controversial decisions last year, in the Hobby Lobby case.
This time, however, it is not the freedom of Christian employers from government interference that is in question, but that of an Islamic prisoner. Oral arguments yesterday in Holt v Hobbs were to hear discussions on whether Gregory Holt, in prison in Arkansas for murdering his wife, can be banned for growing a beard even though he claims, as a devout Muslim, it is a necessary part of his faith. His lawyers were expected to cite the same religious freedom legislation that prevailed in the Hobby Lobby case.
Another religious case with perhaps more wide-ranging repercussions is a lawsuit against retailer Abercrombie & Fitch the US justices decided to take up last week. It concerns a Muslim job candidate who says she was turned down because she wore a headscarf to an interview. The fashion store claims it did not know she was wearing it for religious reasons. A decision in its favor could mean people would have to actively declare their faith if they wanted to obtain protection from discrimination under the law.
WOMEN’S RIGHTS
One of the most bitter divides on the bench is on the subject of women, something over which liberal justices such as Ginsburg accused male conservatives, led by US Chief Justice John Roberts, of having a “blind spot,” following the Hobby Lobby decision.
Last year, US Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by the two other female justices) wrote a blistering dissent to the majority opinion in a separate, but related contraception case, saying their decision “undermines confidence in this institution.”
This year’s flashpoint may prove to be a case involving a pregnant postal worker, Young v United Parcel Service, which she brought after having her request to lift lighter boxes during pregnancy turned down. Bizarrely, the company used laws designed to prevent discrimination against employees who are expecting babies to justify its case — arguing it would be discriminatory to apply different rules to pregnant women just because they were pregnant.
The court is also due to hear a freedom of speech case involving a woman who sought protection from her husband after he called for her “head on a stick” in a series of death threats on Facebook. The case, Elonis v United States, raises new questions about the nature of Internet threats and whether they deserve any protection under the first amendment.
VOTER RIGHTS
Perhaps the most controversial of last year’s conservative majority decisions was a ruling to overturn parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, on the grounds that southern states no longer needed to be singled out for special protection to make sure black voters were not disenfranchised.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers in congress is frantically trying to pass new legislation to update the protections, but the Supreme Court will get a chance to do its bit when it considers a separate case this year relating to redistricting in Alabama. The case, which will be heard a week after next month’s midterm elections, concerns fears among Democrats in the state that boundaries of congressional districts were deliberately redrawn to reduce the impact of black American voters.
Last week, the court took up a second potential gerrymandering case when it agreed to look at Republican claims that Democrats are illegally interfering with similar redistricting in Arizona by appointing an independent commission.
JERUSALEM
Just to prove that the Supreme Court’s influence is not constrained to domestic politics, the bench is also due to hear a case against the US Department of State for refusing to enter Israel as the country of birth in the US passport of a child born in Jerusalem. The challenge to current US policy of neutrality on the question of the whether the city is Israeli or Palestinian will bring the nine justices attention in the Middle East, whatever they decide.
Additional reporting by Amanda Holpuch
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.