Cranium Strategic Plan: Martin Luther King, Jr. instructed The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards Justice. He also instructed, through the use of civil disobedience, that sometimes forcing the arc to bend is morally necessary to do when the universe is taking longer than it should. I eluded to this in a prior post, but I actually think Progressives (or Liberals) need to take a design out of the Conservative playbook not be so timid in utilizing legal strong-arm tactics to force the Supreme Courts hand at either agonizing over the mess created by the tortured precedence they established or establish them to be the infamously tortured mess of a Court history will remember them to be. Even if the initial result isnt what might be best for either the arc or the moral universe. Just I suggested one tactic might be for a protester to intentionally get arrested within the 250 foot non-protest zone in front of the very PUBLIC sidewalk and building of the Supreme Court to force the Court to explain why this zone is somehow constitutional while the 35 foot zone established by the Massachusetts Legislature in front of Womens Health Care Clinics was deemed unconstitutional, I also believe similar tactics could be used to make the Court revisit their recent Hobby Lobby decision. Interesting legal factoid: in order for a claimant to have standing in a dispute over the constitutionality of a law, they must be able to legitimately argue that the imposition of the law unconstitutionally caused them harm. What the claimant doesnt have to argue is why they were standing there in the first place. In other words, the claimants intent for bringing up the lawsuit in the first place is irrelevant. Because their harm, should it be established, is still harm. Let me put my idea in more pragmatic terms: I believe, for example, that a closely owned company, held by Christian family members who just happen to also be Progressive, should sue in a State with anti-LGBTQ discrimination legislation for the right to fire LGBTQ employees on behalf of religious liberty. Take the Court by their balls and bend that arc until it hurts them in their morality. Or, why not have a closely held company, owned by Muslim family members who happen to be Progressive, sue for the right to force women to wear Hijabs (headscarfs) at work on behalf of their religious liberty? Even better, have a closely held company, owned by Catholic family member who happen to be Progressive, sue for the right to not to serve divorced individuals on behalf of their religious liberty. And better yet - considering Justice Alito took great efforts to explain that the Hobby Lobby decision was narrowly tailored to only protect the religious liberty of closely-held companies from having to pay for employee insurance policies that provide contraceptives for women, file all three of cases at the same time - requiring the Court to each of these subsequent cases each on their own merits, on their own specific facts. Suddenly the Court will be made to patch a roof with leaks sprouting up all over ceiling until they realize that the entire roof needs to be replaced in its entirety. And even if each and every decision is as disappointing as next - we need to hold fast to the principal that the arc of the moral university is long, but bends towards Justice. Remember - before there was Brown v. The Board of Education, there was Dred Scott v. Sandford. The arc does eventually bend.
Posted on: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 05:50:06 +0000