Supreme Court: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

English: The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2010. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As conservative as the makeup of the current United States Supreme Court is, they can always be counted on to do the Right thing.  But sometimes they can rule on an issue that puts them in the right with those who don't agree with them.

First, the justices roll back the main portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which civil rights activists in and out of government fought so hard to get passed.  The Court ruled that local election laws in some southern states no longer need the federal government's permission to be implemented on account of possible racial bias.

The Court says things have changed in the South in the past 50 years.  More African-Americans are voting than they did then.  Elections are a lot fairer than they used to be, except for the occasional hanging chad.  Republicans have replaced Democrats as the dominant party in the South, and now rule the country at large.  There are minorities such as Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal who happen to be Governors of southern states (and who also happen to be Republican). And do we need to tell you that there's an African-American President in the White House?  All this wouldn't have been possible without the Voting Rights Act.

So who needs the Voting Rights Act?  Why fix what isn't broken?  Maybe its gutting won't bring back the days of poll taxes or IQ tests on Election Day.  But it sure won't make African-Americans' experiences at the voting booth or in public office any easier.

Second, the Court did gay couples in 12 states a big favor by striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.  This means that, in states where same sex marriage is legal, gay and lesbian couples could file joint tax returns and receive federal benefits previously denied them.  Just like any other couple.

The justices also declined to act on a lower court ruling which overturned Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage in California.  So make that 13 states.

What the Court did not do was to rule on the constitutionality of gays and lesbians getting married in the first place.  Thirty-six states currently outlaw it either by statute or constitutional amendment.

Then there are those who believe government should get out of the marriage business and leave it to the churches.  Since marriages are as much a legal and business matter as well as an emotional one, that's kind of naive.  Besides, if we left it up to the churches, the matter of same sex marriages would be settled.  There just wouldn't be any.

As the Supreme Court's nine justices take off for the summer, only to don the robes again come the first Monday in October, they're leaving behind a mixed legacy.  They might not be the big, bad conservative monsters progressives and other Washington pundits have led us to believe they were.  But they've done enough damage to the country's sense of fairness to make it seem that way.

Security Nation

The seal of the U.S. National Security Agency. The first use was in September 1966, replacing an older seal which was used briefly. For more information, see here and here. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The revelations published by the Washington Post and The Guardian that the United States government has been snooping into our phone records and Internet use for some unspecified reason other than wanting to keep us "safe" should come as no surprise.  After all, the American people are just children to them, to be talked down to when trying to justify matters that only they can understand.  Such as using drones to kill those big bad terrorists, invading foreign countries and pretending it's for national survival, and tapping domestic communications just for the heck of it.

So how come it took an IT guy named Edward Snowden, who had worked for only three months for a contractor named Booz Allen, to claim credit for spilling the beans on what the National Security Agency was really up to?  He now joins Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg as individuals we should either thank or blame for exposing some of the government's secrets.

It isn't just the government that takes advantage of gullible Americans through data mining.  It's also big business who tracks your online habits, whether intentional or not, then uses that information to either sell you stuff or embarrass you.

You can put on the latest and greatest security system on your smartphone or computer.  But they'll still be subject to hacking and snooping.  It also doesn't matter that government and big business has equipment that's far better technologically than anything sold to the general public.  Not unless cyberterrorists and amateur hackers can find a way around them.

Can anything be done to ensure whatever is left of our electronic privacy?  Don't count on it.  Congress passed the Patriot Act years ago without so much as having read it first, and they're too intimidated by all the intelligence briefings they're getting to change it now.

President Barack Obama, who once campaigned against the abuses of national security so prevalent in the George W. Bush administration, has softened his stance once he got into office.  Obama has maintained the status quo in his use of drones and in domestic surveillance begun by Bush, and has led to some successes in rooting out certain members of Al Qaeda while alienating countries like Pakistan.

The President's assurance that nobody in government has been listening to domestic phone calls is kind of hollow to those who already feel betrayed by his two-faced policy on surveillance.  This controversy could wind up damaging the remainder of Obama's presidency.

We wouldn't be talking about any of this if the Bush administration had been taking care of business in the days and months prior to September 11, 2001.  Since then, it has been one security nightmare after another.  Conservatives complain about the 'nanny state', but here they may not be crying wolf.

It was President Ronald Reagan who once coined the phrase "trust, but verify", which was in reference to his negotiations with the Soviet Union over nuclear weapons.  In this case, government and big business ask us to trust them, because they know what they're doing.  The thing is, we can't verify.  It's all classified.  If they can't trust us, how can we trust them?  It's a two-way street.

Reshuffling the WCCO Dawn Patrol

Everlasting DeRusha (Photo credit: Jason DeRusha)

We've said this before, but it bears repeating:  WCCO-TV (Channel 4) likes to brag that more Minnesotans watch their newscasts than any other TV station, and that it's not a coincidence.  They lead at 5, 6 and 10 not just because viewers seem to like (or at least tolerate) Mr. and Mrs. News a.k.a. Frank Vascellaro and Amelia Santaniello, but also CBS' prime time shows.

There's one newscast WCCO doesn't brag about as much, and that's in the morning.  As more and more folks head off to work earlier and earlier, the news is now from 4:30 to 7 a.m. (In some places, it's 4 a.m.)  That's 2 1/2 hours (longer if you're a Fox station or an independent) of warmed-over headlines from last night, weather, traffic reports and fluff before the networks take over.  They've become a cash cow for local stations.

WCCO's morning news currently sits in third place out of four stations.  We don't know who's in first because no one makes local news ratings public any more, unless you happen to be in advertising or station management.

So WCCO makes some changes.  In this town, anything WCCO does becomes headline news.  Nobody cares what the other stations do,

Jason DeRusha and Jamie Yuccas (part of the 'CCO Blonde Patrol, so named for the station's tendency to hire golden-haired female on-air talent) are the new co-anchors, replacing Mike Binkley and Angela Davis (no relation to the activist).  They're moving to Sundays and to substitute anchor work.

For DeRusha, this could be a career game changer.  Up until now, he has parlayed his "Good Question" reporting gig into a magazine column, as a substitute radio host, and an almost constant presence on social media.  (Yes, we follow him on Twitter.  And he follows us.  Why?  That's a good question.)  He's traded it all away for an audience that treats its TV as if it were all-news radio.

Replacing DeRusha on "GQ" is Heather Brown, who recently returned to WCCO from a stint at WNYW/Fox 5 in New York.  Brown is the third reporter in that role, which was originated by current CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy.

There's one other reason why WCCO's ratings are lagging in the morning, and it's a problem shared by other CBS affiliates:  the presence of "CBS This Morning".  Now, the network has never had much luck with its morning news broadcast when compared to NBC's "Today" and ABC's "Good Morning America".  But this version, with Charlie Rose, Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King as co-anchors, has gotten so much positive buzz for emphasizing news over fluff that you wonder why that hasn't translated into more viewers.

Only time will tell if WCCO's morning ratings will rise and shine, but we do know one thing:  The hype machine will continue to turn its reporters and anchors into stars, while the quality of its journalism sinks into the abyss.  Always.