Ordinarily poised and silent Supreme Court justices have lately become whirling dervishes, turning madly to refute the idea that Americans are beginning to view the Court as a dangerous cabal of partisan hackers.
They don’t need to worry and wring their hands. Nobody starts to think so. Many of us have believed this for a long time. The Supremes are often Shakespeare fans, so of course they’re familiar with the phrase âdoth protest too much, methinksâ.
The once-august court’s approval ratings for fairness were already declining two decades ago. The flower came off the dress in 2000, when the court started the match against Bush against Gore, voting five to four to stop the Florida recount and anoint a Republican president.
If we evoke an alternative history look at America, consider all the things the Supreme Court threw on our heads by preemptively stealing this victory from George W Bush: two endless and inexplicable wars, which cost so much. lives and so many billions of billions. ; a descent into torture; the villainous Dick Cheney.
As some have noted on Twitter, our 20 years of quicksand in Afghanistan was crowned Friday with this headline: “Son of former Afghan defense minister buys Beverly Hills mansion for $ 20.9 million .
Al Gore, ridiculed as “the man of ozone” by Bush Sr., certainly would have tried to avoid the biblical floods and fires that are engulfing our country.
Right-wing judges may as well embrace their reputation for hacking. Because in this highly successful year, when the Conservative court starts debating abortion and the Second Amendment, one thing is for sure: they are going to be making decisions that will drive people crazy, decisions that will be out of step with this. that most Americans believe. So please, Conservative Cabal, don’t pretend you’re not doing this out of ideology.
And please, Judge Breyer, hang around. You are playing a dangerous game. You have to get out of there because it looks like the midterms are going to be bad, and if Democrats lose a majority in the Senate, there’s no guarantee Mitch McConnell will leave any Biden candidate in court, even with two years left in office. Of the president. Do you want the tribunal to be seven to two?
Listen to those Democrats who warn that staying would be irresponsible and selfish. Don’t make the colossal mistake Ruth Bader Ginsburg made, ignoring pleas from leading Democrats and Obama’s White House advice to leave on time and clinging on for so long that the worst possible outcome happens: Lady Handmaid’s Tale, fiercely anti-abortion, trying to reverse RBG’s legacy.
And please America, can we have term limits? Judges should not be on the court for 30 years or until the late 1980s.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who didn’t want the tribunal to be seen as too extreme, has lost control because there are five other rabid Tories running it.
Donald Trump’s ability to bring three Tories into the field, thanks to McConnell, will prove to be the most significant part of his miserable presidency. And the Minority Leader is about to get his reward in the form of a bunch of conservative decisions.
The beauty for McConnell is that the court is going to do its dirty work for him. Republicans don’t want to vote to cancel abortion rights because they know it’s not popular and they don’t want their fingerprints on it. They would prefer the court to do it.
Linda Greenhouse, who published a book called Justice on the Brink, published an article in the New York Times summarizing why it is brutal for our democracy to have institutions so out of step with the views of the majority in the country: â Three polls in the past month show that less than a third of Americans want the court to overturn Roe v Wade. However, it appears that only a third of judges can count on the preservation of the right to abortion as defined by the current case law of the Court. So unlucky women in the red states are going back to the back alley days?
As the New York Times’ Adam Liptak said on The Daily, the Supreme Court could tinker with Roe v Wade, or it could take “an option that will be appealing to the more conservative members of the court,” one “that gives held under the headline ‘Supreme Court Annuls Roe Against Wade’, which would be a big topical day â. He also noted that the reason judges are so sensitive now is that âthe authority of the Supreme Court – it’s a little hard to know where it came from. Of course, it’s in the constitution, but they don’t have an army, they don’t have the power of the stock exchange. It is not entirely clear why we are doing what the Supreme Court tells us to do.
Ignore the masquerade of the parade of judges protesting that they are pure and neutral. Nobody buys it. We all know it’s a disaster if the country goes one way and the tribunal the other. The less dangerous branch, as the yard was once known, has become the more dangerous branch. – This article originally appeared in the New York Times