A horrible, no good, very bad Court


From Slate: June 30, 2022:

Consider the issues that SCOTUS has resolved this term—the first full term with a 6–3 conservative supermajority. The constitutional right to abortion: gone. States’ ability to limit guns in public: gone. Tribal sovereignty against state intrusion: gone. Effective constraints around separation of church and state: gone. The bar on prayer in public schools: gone. Effective enforcement of Miranda warnings: gone. The ability to sue violent border agents: gone. The Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases at power plants: gone. Vast areas of the law, established over the course of decades, washed away by a court over a few months.

I don’t usually read Slate, but I stumbled upon this paragraph late last night and it seemed to sum up quite succinctly the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. I disagree with all of them. Vehemently. Not that my vote in the fall will make one iota of difference, but it’s all I’ve got. I’ve read there are ways Congress and the President can bring the Court to heel, but expecting Congress to agree on anything, much less act on it, seems to be a thing of the past.

Donald Trump and his toadies did this. He nominated and they confirmed his superconservative theocratic jurists to the Court, despite their equivocations during their confirmation hearings. And even if Trump eventually goes to prison, as he should for seditious conspiracy, his court will live long after him — for their lifetimes if they desire. Truly, the evil that men do lives after them.

The pundits say we’ll see a red wave sweeping elections in the fall, that the party out of power usually sees such a wave in mid-term elections.

Every day I wake up thinking “Surely things can’t get any worse.” But sure enough, every day …

Also on Pied Type: “I might only have one match … “

18 thoughts on “A horrible, no good, very bad Court

    1. Yes, our life’s work as women for women is being swept away. Mostly by men and religious individuals who assume they’ve a right to impose their religion on the rest of us. I doubt I’ll live long enough to see our 50 years of progress restored.

  1. Indeed, the current court seems to believe the Constitution should be a list of “don’ts,” rather than a list of guaranteed rights. It’s a very negative approach but a very religious one (think Moses and his Ten Commandments). It reflects what I think is the most dangerous trend of recent court decisions – the erosion of the separation of church and state.

    1. I couldn’t agree more. It’s that imposition of religion on everyone that upsets and worries me the most. The abandonment of science and fact in favor of religious tenets based only on personal beliefs and/or documents written thousands of years ago is abhorrent, especially when it violates the doctrine of separation of church and state.

      “Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.
      Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.”
      — H.L. Mencken

    1. I’m quite content to let religious people think and act as they wish (as long as they obey the law) … but I draw the line at their imposing their religious beliefs on anyone else or changing the law in order to do so.

    1. One can be a good Republican without ramming your religion down the throats of others. I don’t know where we go now, without a properly unbiased Supreme Court.

  2. I’m trying to imagine an up side of what appears to have nothing but down sides.

    First of all, the main body of the U.S. Constitution contains a small list of things the government is empowered to do, as well as the method required to do them.  No where in that main body is there any attempt to empower the government with the health or decisions about health for citizens of either sex.

    Then there’s the 10th amendment. It clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    The upshot of this is that we need to accept responsibility for the dismal state of current affairs and do everything we can to stop it’s continuation.  Up until recently, congress and presidents have delegated authority to regulate so that they would not have to go on record either championing or opposing proposed regulations and penalties for non-compliance. Now the burden is ours to elect people who won’t create or support illegal, unconstitutional bills and powers NOT delegated to the governmental jurisdiction in which they reside.

    Article One, Section One: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Neither the IRS. the EPA nor any other cabinet position or government agency has the power to legislate.  

    I, for one, am going to see if I can get put back on the roll of potential jurors. As one in twelve, I would have more power than any one congressperson or even the president when it comes to overturning bad laws.  If you are’t already familiar with it, everybody needs to research FIJA.

    1. Sorry you got held up for moderation. It happens automatically if you include links.

      Lord knows governance at the state level has its own built-in shortcomings. I’m thankful that here in Colorado, with the anticipated overturn of Roe v. Wade, the legislature passed a law protecting the right to abortion. So the SCOTUS ruling has no effect here. In addition, plans were immediately implemented to accommodate the expected flood of women from those states where they were disenfranchised.

      But the problem is, I think, that SCOTUS can declare any state laws unconstitutional and throw them out (after someone files suit and gets their case to the Supreme Court.) I think Colo. law is safe because repeated attempts here to knock down pro-choice protections have failed and would therefore not get as far as the Supreme Court. However, if there’s any way to get around all that and let SCOTUS control us, I’m sure someone will figure it out.

      I’d not thought of jury duty as a way to fight back, but it makes sense. It’s a step more than simply voting, although it would only come into play if an abortion-related case made it to a jury. (Yes, I can see that happening in Texas where anybody can sue someone for having or assisting an abortion. Readers may not recall you live in Texas.) I’m not sure such a case would arise here, but I’m not underestimating the determination, ingenuity, and deviousness of the anti-abortion crowd.

      I feel like we’ve entered the new Dark Ages. (And Google just told me the Dark Ages lasted 500 years!)

  3. Unfortunately, you are correct in that the SCOTUS can simply declare any state law unconstitutional if someone with standing challenges it. But… when a state (or federal) trial attempts to punish someone who gets or facilitates an abortion, they (it) must convince a jury to convict. If I am on that jury, (regardless of the circumstances) the government entity fails. Full Stop.

    1. I think I may have read that sometime in the past. It’s very well reasoned and the logic is hard to dismiss. What seems to be lacking these days is the willingness to admit that others have the same rights we do. In that, as in other things, the Bible was right in saying “Do unto others … ” Funny how so many so-called Christians seem to have forgotten that.

... and that's my two cents