Supreme Court Slowly Carrying Out Right-Wing Agenda…

Over the years, I have heard many peo­ple com­plain about the Democrat Party; some allege that the par­ty is no dif­fer­ent than the Republican Party.
Whether or not this is true is not for me to decide; suf­fic­ing to say that the Democrat par­ty also has a lot of white peo­ple in it, and we have to sim­ply come to terms with the fact that what looks like a major­i­ty of white peo­ple seem to have a seri­ous sense of inse­cu­ri­ty about who they are; hence they tell them­selves that they are some­how supe­ri­or to others.
So racism is cer­tain­ly not reserved only for the nean­derthals that have opt­ed to join that cult.
One notable point of inter­est is the lack of vis­i­ble action and the sense of non­cha­lance Senate Democrats have in the face of the barn-burn­ing urgency around vot­ing rights and a wom­an’s right to choose.
Shaping the infra­struc­ture putting America back into the dark ages is the Roberts Supreme court, which destroyed the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013 in its infa­mous and dis­grace­ful Shelby County, Alabama Vs. Holder dur­ing Barack Obama’s Presidency; and It’s a loud and clear deci­sion not to respond to sev­er­al appeals against the oner­ous Texas Law that makes it a crime for doc­tors to per­form an abor­tion on a woman after six weeks.

Whether one agrees with abor­tions in prin­ci­ple or not is hard­ly the point. The cen­tral issue is whether or not a woman has a right to make deci­sions regard­ing her own body. A ques­tion that has been set­tled law since the land­mark deci­sion of Roe Vs. Wade was hand­ed down by an ear­li­er supreme court on January 22, 1973.
The Roberts Court of 9 jus­tices is tilt­ed 6 – 3 in favor of Republicans, which brings up the oth­er ques­tion of why are Democrats afraid to use pow­er when they have it to save the coun­try from return­ing to the dark ages by appoint­ing at least three more asso­ciate jus­tices to the court?
The Roberts’ court, which con­sists of Republicans John Roberts, Uncle Clarence Tom-Ass, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amey Coney Barrett, has no respect for prece­dent stare deci­sis be damned.

Liberal jus­tice Sonia Sotomayor has been rel­e­gat­ed to writ­ing scathing dis­sents to their regres­sive deci­sions; deci­sions aimed at return­ing the coun­try to the 1950s era before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the rights women fought for to have con­trol over their own bod­ies. The Robert’s court is work­ing to over­turn Roe v Wade, and it will suc­ceed in undo­ing almost five decades of set­tled law. This court has no respect for prece­dent, no respect for stare deci­sis. It is a right-wing workaround the will of the peo­ple. Since Republicans can­not win elec­tions fair­ly, they have stacked the courts and all but cre­at­ed an instru­ment of minor­i­ty rule in the court.
For all intents and pur­pos­es, the coun­try is now being run by a cabal of unelect­ed judges who are obliv­i­ous to the major­i­ty’s will and the intent of the constitution.
They upend­ed the 56-year-old long-set­tled Voting Rights Act dur­ing Obama’s pres­i­den­cy, and now, by refus­ing to pro­tect Roe V Wade, the 48-year-old prece­dent, they have allowed Texas to start the process of dis­man­tling the rights and pro­tec­tions that every woman has been giv­en by God, one that no gov­ern­ment should have the pow­er to inter­fere in.
With regards to the 5 – 4 deci­sion not to block the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al attack on wom­en’s rights, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued anoth­er scathing opin­ion after the right-wing major­i­ty of Clarence Tom-Ass, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amey Coney-Barrett, decid­ed to aid Texas, by not step­ping in to pro­tect a wom­an’s right to chose.
John Roberts, in this instance, sided with the court’s lib­er­al minority.

Siad Justice Sotomayor; “The Court’s order is stun­ning.” “Presented with an appli­ca­tion to enjoin a fla­grant­ly uncon­sti­tu­tion­al law engi­neered to pro­hib­it women from exer­cis­ing their con­sti­tu­tion­al rights and evade judi­cial scruti­ny, a major­i­ty of Justices have opt­ed to bury their heads in the sand. … The Court’s fail­ure to act rewards tac­tics designed to avoid judi­cial review and inflicts sig­nif­i­cant harm on the appli­cants and on women seek­ing abor­tions in Texas.”
Said Justice Stephen Breyer; “The new law’s reliance on pri­vate indi­vid­u­als rather than pros­e­cu­tors to han­dle enforce­ment, which would come through civ­il suits, should not immu­nize it from lit­i­ga­tion in the courts.”
“I rec­og­nize that Texas’s law del­e­gates the State’s pow­er to pre­vent abor­tions not to one per­son (such as a dis­trict attor­ney) or to a few per­sons (such as a group of gov­ern­ment offi­cials or pri­vate cit­i­zens), but to any per­son. But I do not see why that fact should make a crit­i­cal legal dif­fer­ence.”
[Politico] opined that Justice Elena Kagan devot­ed much of her dis­sent to crit­i­ciz­ing the court for its increas­ing reliance on its emer­gency dock­et to make deci­sions of great sig­nif­i­cance to the coun­try, with­out the ben­e­fit of full brief­ing or oral arguments.
Said Justice Elena Kagan, “Today’s rul­ing illus­trates just how far the Court’s ‘shad­ow-dock­et’ deci­sions may depart from the usu­al prin­ci­ples of the appel­late process.” “The majority’s deci­sion is emblem­at­ic of too much of this Court’s shad­ow-dock­et deci­sion-mak­ing — which every day becomes more unrea­soned, incon­sis­tent, and impos­si­ble to defend.”

Seems to me, as I often say, the very court that ought to be the pro­tec­tor of the Constitution is the very insti­tu­tion that is the great­est vio­la­tor of said con­sti­tu­tion out of polit­i­cal and ide­o­log­i­cal considerations.
However, here is a bit of irony in Chief Justice John Roberts’ dis­sent­ing opinion.
Roberts called the Texas leg­is­la­tion “not only unusu­al but unprece­dent­ed.” His dis­sent was more reserved than that of the lib­er­als, but he expressed con­cern that bless­ing a scheme like the one adopt­ed in the Lone Star State could cre­ate a mod­el for oth­er states seek­ing to have laws of dubi­ous con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty kick in for some peri­od of time.
That is exact­ly the point, but the right-wing robed idiots on the court have fall­en in lockstep.
However, the great­est irony is reserved for Roberts him­self, who worked assid­u­ous­ly to gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act using the most dubi­ous and ridicu­lous argu­ments, which opened up the flood­gates allow­ing States to pass a pha­lanx of anti-vot­ing rights laws across the country.
Of course, this bit of irony is lost on Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ene­mies of Democracy and Human Rights are get­ting what they want, and that’s a direct result of what Mitch McConnell pulled off on the coun­try when he unlaw­ful­ly blocked Merrick Garland from being ele­vat­ed to the US Supreme Court.
By doing so, the most cor­rupt, vile racist to become pres­i­dent in our life­time was able to appoint Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amey Coney-Barrett to the high­est court to turn America back to a time when white men made all of the deci­sions, includ­ing whether oth­er peo­ple are allowed to vote, or whether a woman who is raped can flush the seed of her rapist from her body and soul.

.

.

.

Mike Beckles is a for­mer Police Detective, busi­ness­man, free­lance writer, black achiev­er hon­oree, and cre­ator of the blog mike​beck​les​.com.