top of page
Search

Profound Moral Corruption and Hypocrisy on the Bench


It is July 1st, 2022. We are just a week past the triumph of Christofascism that was the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. We are three days away from the patriotic autofellatio that is the 4th of July.


Justice Alito opens and closes his opinion with the sentence, "Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views."


This is wrong. Per the Pew Research Center, over 60% of Americans support abortion in all or almost all cases. American views are not sharply conflicting, but they are being drowned out by a loud, influential minority. Not that it any of that should matter, religion cannot dictate public policy, that is explicitly explained in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Moreover, we should not take public polls on what you do with your own body. Bodily autonomy is fundamental to one's dignity and human rights, someone else's personal values don't get to take that away from you.


And abortion is not a profound moral issue. Abortion is a necessary medical procedure, it is better likened to chemotherapy or cholecystectomy, To certain individuals, abortion represents a profound moral issue and I respect their decision not to get an abortion. But the Court's decision does not "return that authority to the people and their elected representatives" as Justice Alito claims. This decision allows a loud minority to force their religious values on an nonconsenting majority. A protected right to an abortion is the only way both the majority views and minority views can be respected, legalized abortions still allow objectors the choice to not get an abortion but abortion bans restrict the ability of people to access necessary healthcare.


But, that's not actually what I want to write about. My voice adds very little to the abortion "debate" and does not need lifted or highlighted in this moment of extreme anxiety and devastation. So I will simply join the chorus of those disavowing this decision and committing ourselves to fight by any means necessary.


What I do want to write about is the law.


Specifically, what gave the Supreme Court the authority to overrule fifty years of precedent. Because the absolute hypocrisy being demonstrated by the conservative members of the Supreme Court today is so remarkably blatant is would be laughably hilarious if it wasn't so horrifying.


This June has actually been a greatest hits of conservative fuckery. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has rightfully been getting the majority of the attention but just yesterday, June 30th, 2022, the Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency and a few days prior, on June 23rd, 2022, the Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police.


In Dobbs, the Court explained that the since there was no explicit right to an abortion in the Constitution, the Court had no authority to protect said right. It then also explained, that since the state of Mississippi had an "interest" in "protecting the life of the unborn", they had to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey.


In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas takes this position to an additional extreme and suggests that the "Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion." This language would suggest that rights have to be directly numerated in the constitution to exist. Justice Thomas follows up this idea by directly questioning the constitutionality of Griswold v. Connecticut, which gave married persons a right to obtain contraceptives, Lawrence v. Texas, which gave Americans the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts (specifically protecting queer folks and preventing states from outlawing "sodomy"), and he questioned Obergefell v. Hodges which gave same-sex couples the right to legally recognized marriage.


Then in West Virginia v. EPA, the Court again decided because "Capping carbon dioxide emissions" was not a role explicitly given to the EPA from Congress or the Constitution, it was not under the EPA's purview and therefore they had no right to engage in said type of regulation.


All while also ruling in Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen, that the 2nd Amendment foes give an explicit permission to own firearms without language giving states the explicit power to prevent that ownership in public. Therefore ruling that New York's restrictions on open-carry are unconstitutional.


Now, these decisions are morally reprehensible, a public policy nightmare, and violating longstanding precedents, but to an everyday person they might also sound Constitutionally reasonable. The Court is not supposed to take a political stance, they are simply supposed to review and interpret the letter of the law and the Constitution. So while awful, could an argument be made that they were just doing their job?


Well, where did that job come from? We are referring to the principle of Judicial Review, the power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional. One might assume, since this has in many ways become the most impactful role the Court plays, that this job is explicitly listed in the Constitution. But no, its not.


Way back in 1803, an issue came before the Supreme Court where outgoing President John Adams passed a law to create a bunch of new Courts and added a bunch of new Judges right before President-elect Thomas Jefferson took office. One of those appointed was William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. But the commission was never delivered and then President Jefferson took over and James Madison became the Secretary of State, and Madison refused to deliver the commission and recognize the appointment.


So, Marbury (joined by three other appointees in similar positions) sued Madison to get their positions. The lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court, and the Court found that it was illegal for Madison to refuse to deliver the commission but it didn't matter because the Court also found that the clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave Marbury the ability to sue Madison at the Supreme Court was unconstitutional.


This is the first example of "judicial review", the first example of the Court declaring something unconstitutional and its a power they derived from themselves. There is nothing explicitly written in the Constitution that gives them this power, instead they just established the power for themselves.


This is where the hypocrisy of the Bench comes in. The Supreme Court is using a power they do not explicitly have from the Constitution to declare certain actions as unconstitutional because those actions are not supported by explicit constitutional provisions.


So, let's cut the bullshit. These decisions are not well-founded in deep jurisprudence and precedent, they aren't pulled from direct Constitutional provisions, and they aren't balanced legal arguments. Its a far-right political agenda hiding in a black robe.


That agenda was made more obvious in the June 27th, 2022 decision, when the Court ruled to established religion within public schools by siding with Mr. Kennedy in Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, allowing a football coach to preside over prayer during official school programs.


And the agenda will become even more obvious in upcoming cases.


This includes an upcoming case attacking affirmative action, in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, where a group of activists and students bankrolled by conservatives are looking to limit or fully end initiatives that offer fairer admissions to historically marginalized communities and work to re-even the historically very uneven playing field of higher education.


And in an upcoming case where a Colorado resident, Lorie Smith, is suing Colorado over a law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against customers, including on the basis of sexual orientation. She argues that making websites for same-sex couples violates her first amendment rights, and many anticipate that the Court will agree with her and legalize anti-gay discrimination.


And in an upcoming case Timothy Moore, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives v. Rebecca Harper, which has potential to genuinely end American democracy. It will the give the Court the power to remove nearly all federal oversight for state-ran elections, this includes drawing of electoral maps, voter registration policies, and election day protocols. It would undue the remaining protections from the Voting Rights Act and allow states to engage in widespread voter disenfranchisement and potentially even choose their own electors.


The Court has never been a bastion of progress and progressivism but there was, for decades, a trend where the Court would expand existing rights and identify new ones. That trend is over. The Court is now a key ally to Christofascists and their intentional and coordinated efforts to expand and solidify their supremacy.


Now, in the days of the New Deal, President Roosevelt just threatened to pack the Court or ignore its orders in service to the working class but that is itself a potentially problematic norm to violate and precedent to set. So, instead, the responsibility falls to the people.


Voting doesn't work. Democrats had 50 years to codify these rights and failed on all fronts. That isn't to say, don't vote, definitely vote. Keep blue states blue, try and flip red legislatures and Governors and Mayoral Offices to the blue and push for local codification and expansion of these rights, but don't be lulled into a false sense of security by the performative power of the ballot box.


Real change comes from real actions. Now is a time for disobedience and mutual aid. If a law is unjust, than the just person must violate it. If your comrade is injured, you are injured, and if you community is in need, you are to provide. So, start breaking the law, start supporting your community, and start building a coalition not around who you voted for but who you will fight alongside.

Tonight's selection pairs best with a straight shot of illegal Moonshine.














 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page