WHY JUDGES MATTER: Washington Post columnist blasts judicial war against sensible regulation

It’s not just the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court that has been undermining our rights and liberties while pandering to corporate special interests.

In a blistering column Sunday, Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein tears into some of the judges on what is widely-regarded as the nation’s second highest court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Pearlstein blasts judges on that court for:

• Striking down a regulation calling for graphic health warnings on cigarette labels.
• Striking down a regulation allowing shareholders to nominate directors of the companies they own.
• Striking down regulations to control air pollution that would "prevent between 13,000 and 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 non-fatal heart attacks, 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 1.8 million lost days of school or work."

Pearlstein notes that the money saved through these health benefits is 50 to 100 times greater than the cost of the regulations.

Pearlstein calls the judge who wrote the air pollution opinion, Brett Kavanaugh, "nothing more than a partisan shock trooper in a black robe waging an ideological battle against regulation." He calls Kavanaugh’s opinion in the case "60 pages of legal sophistry, procedural hairsplitting and scientific conjecture." And he adds:

It is a hallmark of "conservative" judges that they genuflect before the tabernacle of judicial restraint even as they throw themselves lustily into the pit of judicial activism.

Read the entire column here.

Why judges matter: another victory for voting – thanks to the Voting Rights Act

A special panel of three federal judges today delayed implementation of a South Carolina law requiring voters to produce a federal or state issued photo ID. The judges ruled that trying to implement the law in time for the presidential election would put an unreasonable burden on minority voters. That would violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

According to Bloomberg News:

"Given the short time left before the 2012 elections, and given the numerous steps necessary to properly implement the law -- particularly the new ‘reasonable impediment’ provision -- and ensure that the law would not have discriminatory retrogressive effects on African-American voters in 2012, we do not grant pre-clearance for the 2012 elections," U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh said in the ruling.

The keyword there is “pre-clearance.” Under the Voting Rights Act, one of the signature achievements of the fight for racial equality, certain parts of the country with a long history of discrimination must get special, advance approval – “pre-clearance” – before they change voting procedures.

This provision, considered the heart of the Voting Rights Act, has been in effect for nearly half a century. But now it is under threat. Its constitutionality has been challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear the case during the coming term. Given the track record of the current Supreme Court majority, many observers fear that the preclearance provision will be struck down.

It’s one more reason why judges matter.