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.