This Court Will Be The Death Of The Republic…

A court con­sumed with raw polit­i­cal pow­er that cares noth­ing about stare deci­sis or the law.

Have you ever seen a spool of thread or a ball of yarn get so tan­gled up that try­ing to untan­gle it becomes futile, so much so that you throw it into the garbage?
Doesn’t it seem like that’s where America is head­ed with its fifty states with fifty dif­fer­ent laws com­pet­ing against fed­er­al laws and gov­er­nors from red states refus­ing to accede to fed­er­al man­dates from the fed­er­al exec­u­tive because the guy in the white house is not of their par­ty? All the while call­ing itself the United States of America.
There is noth­ing unit­ed about America right now; the coun­try has an ille­git­i­mate supreme court that has zero legit­i­ma­cy in its make­up, a court that, as a mat­ter of raw pow­er, elim­i­nat­ed the con­sti­tu­tion­al right to abor­tion, rec­og­nized a Second Amendment right to car­ry guns out­side the home, made it hard­er to address cli­mate change and expand­ed the role of reli­gion in pub­lic life. The New York Times Adam Liptak, on July 1, 2022, wrote; By one stan­dard mea­sure­ment used by polit­i­cal sci­en­tists, the term that end­ed on Thursday was the most con­ser­v­a­tive since 1931
Every year since John Roberts became chief jus­tice, the court’s results at the end of the term have been less con­ser­v­a­tive than many court watch­ers feared they would be at the term’s out­set,” said David Cole, the nation­al legal direc­tor of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This time, the doom­say­ers got it exact­ly right, as the court trad­ed cau­tion for raw pow­er.” That can only be the con­se­quence of the three jus­tices Donald Trump named to the court, par­tic­u­lar­ly of his appoint­ment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court after the death in 2020 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The momen­tous and earth-shat­ter­ing deci­sions of this rad­i­cal right-wing court this term is only a small har­bin­ger of things to come as the court’s next term will decide the fate of affir­ma­tive action in high­er edu­ca­tion, how to inter­pret the Voting Rights Act in the con­text of redis­trict­ing and whether a web design­er has a First Amendment right to refuse to work on projects involv­ing same-sex wed­dings. The jus­tices agreed to hear one more block­buster that could rad­i­cal­ly reshape American elec­tions on the pow­er of state leg­is­la­tures to set vot­ing rules. If the past is pro­logue, and in this case, it is, these deci­sions will effec­tive­ly send America cat­a­pult­ing back into the dark ages.
The progress of America is now stopped, and a full rever­sal of rights that gen­er­a­tions of Americans have enjoyed are now in effect by six right-wing frauds, five of whom were appoint­ed by two ille­git­i­mate Republican pres­i­dents, Goerge W Bush and Donald Trump, both of whom lost the pop­u­lar vote in 2000, and 2016 respec­tive­ly but became pres­i­dent because of the equal­ly fraud­u­lent elec­toral col­lege process that selects the American President.


If you thought that was all, you are sore­ly mis­tak­en as state leg­is­la­tures dom­i­nat­ed by rad­i­cal repub­li­cans are busy pass­ing anti-vot­ing rights laws, laws that would crim­i­nal­ize any woman who seeks abor­tion ser­vices in states that still offer them, and even laws that make it a crim­i­nal offense to film police in the exe­cu­tion of their duties.
In Arizona, Republican Governor Doug Ducey recent­ly signed a bill into law that makes it a mis­de­meanor to film police from clos­er than eight (8) feet. This is Fascism, plain and sim­ple. This writer wrote a while back that this would be the way for­ward for Americans try­ing to hold the fas­cist state actors accountable.
This was fore­see­able as the cops all embarked on the same lie and began to par­rot the same talk­ing points, you are divid­ing my atten­tion from what I am doing”. At scene after scene, they par­rot­ted the same lie. I warned that their unions told them to say it and that laws would be passed based on that lie. The first amend­ment to the con­sti­tu­tion is now out the door in Arizona. It will be copied and past­ed to all states run by repub­li­cans and even blue states because police unions have huge clout and long pock­ets to fund fascism.
Weren’t it for a brave young woman with a cell phone, Derek Chauvin would still be a police offi­cer ter­ror­iz­ing and killing inno­cent people?
Republicans like Ducey and the bil­l’s spon­sor, Republican rep­re­sen­ta­tive John Kavanagh know this, which is why they wrote and signed that bill into law. It is designed to stop aggriev­ed cit­i­zens, par­tic­u­lar­ly black peo­ple, from shin­ing a light on the state death squads that oper­ate under the col­or of law.
Kavanagh admit­ted that cops com­plained to him that peo­ple fol­lowed them around and filmed them; the cops lied that peo­ple filmed them from with­in one to two feet. That is a lie as police force peo­ple film­ing to stay long dis­tances away, often so far away they can­not see or hear what is hap­pen­ing. It is on those lies that this leg­is­la­tion became law in Arizona.

The unde­ni­able truth is that the court that was designed to pro­tect the con­sti­tu­tion is now the great­est threat to the Democratic process.
* The Supreme Court ruled in Plessy V. Ferguson (1896) that race-based seg­re­ga­tion was legal, a deci­sion that was not over­turned for more than 50 years. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of seg­re­ga­tion so long as it was sep­a­rate but equal.

Lochner v. New York (over­ruled by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish) In Lochner v. New York (1905), the court ruled the law inter­fered with employ­er-employ­ee con­tracts and was gov­ern­ment over­reach, as well as a vio­la­tion of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause Until 1937, the rule was the law of the land. Courts adhered to the prece­dent, strik­ing down sim­i­lar labor cases.
*Bowers v. Hardwick (over­ruled by Lawrence v. Texas).

Michael Hardwick was arrest­ed by a police offi­cer in Georgia in 1982 for sodomy and sued, chal­leng­ing the state’s law and nam­ing then-Attorney General Michael J. Bowers in this suit. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that there was no con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tion of sodomy, and states could out­law homo­sex­u­al inter­course. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the court reversed the deci­sion entire­ly. In a 6 – 3 rul­ing, jus­tices ruled for John Lawrence, who had been con­vict­ed under a sodomy law. The court said mak­ing it a crime for two men to have sex vio­lat­ed the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The deci­sion would also pave the way toward the land­mark 2015 rul­ing of Obergefell v. Hodges, which legal­ized same-sex mar­riage in the U.S.

Wolf v. Colorado (over­ruled by Mapp v. Ohio)

In the 1949 case. Wolf vs. Colorado, Julius A. Wolf, Charles H. Fulton, and Betty Fulton were charged with con­spir­a­cy to per­form an abor­tion. Wolf chal­lenged the evi­dence used against him, argu­ing it was seized ille­gal­ly and in vio­la­tion of his Fourth Amendment right. The court, how­ev­er, said ille­gal­ly obtained evi­dence did not have to be exclud­ed from court by default. Years lat­er, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) saw anoth­er stun­ning rever­sal from Supreme Court prece­dent. In that case, jus­tices ruled in favor of Dollree Mapp, who was con­vict­ed of pos­sess­ing obscene mate­ri­als dur­ing an ille­gal police search of her home for a sep­a­rate inves­ti­ga­tion into a miss­ing fugitive.

*Pace v. Alabama (over­ruled by Loving v. Virginia

Pace V. Alabama (1882) con­cerned Tony Pace, an African American man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, who were charged with adul­tery and for­ni­ca­tion in Alabama under a law that severe­ly pun­ished inter­ra­cial rela­tion­ships. Pace took a legal chal­lenge to the Supreme Court, argu­ing it vio­lat­ed the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Justices ruled that Alabama’s law was not in con­flict with the Constitution, despite more severe pun­ish­ments levied against African-Americans in vio­la­tion. In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court reversed that rul­ing in anoth­er case — near­ly 100 years lat­er. Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a White man, were arrest­ed in Virginia and sen­tenced to a year in jail for vio­lat­ing a law ban­ning inter-racial mar­riages. Loving chal­lenged the statute, argu­ing it was a vio­la­tion of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed. “Under our Constitution, the free­dom to mar­ry, or not mar­ry, a per­son of anoth­er race resides with the indi­vid­ual and can­not be infringed by the State,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the major­i­ty opinion.

The supreme court has made mon­u­men­tal­ly hor­ri­ble deci­sions that have neg­a­tive­ly affect­ed the lives of ordi­nary Americans in ways yet to be ful­ly understood.
The court con­tin­ue to rule and over­rule set­tled laws that should have remained, instead choos­ing to ignore stare deci­sis, let the deci­sion stand. Here are a few oth­er examples.

  1. Roe v. Wade (1973)
  2. Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)
  3. Baker v. Nelson (1972)
  4. Lochner v. New York (1905) and Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923)
  5. Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
  6. Adler v. Board of Education (1952)
  7. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
  8. Pace v. Alabama (1883)
  9. Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990)
  10. Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)
  11. Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
  12. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
  13. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

.

.

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