MAY BE SUPREME, BUT FAIR?

by Ruth A. Sheets

The Supreme Court ended its 2020-2021 session with a bombshell.  It was dropped on July 1^st and essentially told Arizona it can make restrictive voting laws if it chooses and there will be ways to claim they are not discriminating against Black Americans and other people of color.  The Court essentially told Arizona and any other state that is interested, that voting restriction can be a viable means of keeping unwanted votes from entering the election, and the Court will approve if the law doesn’t specifically say “to keep Black people from voting.”

I was not surprised at this ruling.  I knew when the Court’s conservatives let the Affordable Care Act (ACA) stand there would be a destructive decision to come.  I was not sure exactly which it would be, but it was a guarantee.  When I realized that voting rights were among the final rulings to be handed down, I was pretty sure it would not be good for those who are against voter suppression.

The Court conservatives for the past few decades have done what they can to represent the interests OF white, male, wealthy individuals and corporations.  They have done a pretty good job of it too. 

To seem to be “non-partisan” one or two members will occasionally rule against the desires of their constituency, in ways that don’t usually directly impact them.  Acknowledging same-sex marriage is an example of this.  In exchange, they gutted the Voting Rights Act despite its recertification by nearly everyone in Congress.  They ruled that it is acceptable to discriminate against people you don’t like on religious grounds (Christian, of course).  They claimed money is speech and said it does not matter how much money people put into a campaign it is acceptable.  They even told California this year that it doesn’t matter what they want.  Corporations, rich individuals, PACs, and anyone else with lots of money can contribute to anyone they want and no one has the right to know.  So much for state’s rights.

The conservatives on the Court claim to mostly be originalists which means, somehow, they know the minds of the founders who didn’t even know their own minds on many of the issues they were voting on in the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  That’s pretty amazing!  It’s almost as good as having the ear of God.

Who are these conservatives?  Clarence Thomas was George H.W. Bush’s slap in the face to Thurgood Marshall, the man he would replace as well as Black Americans in general.  Two of the conservatives, Thomas and Kavanaugh  have credibly been accused of sexual misconduct, but that’s OK as long as they are guaranteed votes on most, if not all, rulings that benefit rich white males and are against women’s rights.

The conservative test to be approved for the Court has been anti-abortion which means, anti-Rowe v Wade.  Why this should in any way concern men who will never be pregnant is unclear.  Amy Barrett was the slap in the face for women who support women’s rights and Ruth Bader Ginsberg whom she was carefully picked to replace.  Just as Thomas is the token Black man who will stand against the rights of Black people, Barrett will do the same to women.  Misogyny is alive and well among all six of the conservatives and maybe racism is sneaking around that group too.

One way the Court can be brought to a more balanced place, perhaps, is to expand it.  I am thinking 4 additional seats would be a good start.  I would also like to see the terms limited to 18 years, then the justices can either retire or move to one of the other Federal courts to finish serving their lifetime terms.  These changes are worth a try since the trick now with Republicans is to stack the Court so they will get the rulings they want/need to help keep themselves in power.   

The Court’s current “liberals” seem to be standing for people’s rights but that may not always be the case.  Therefore, more members of the Court and limited terms may help justices to think about the fact that there is life after the Court and maybe better decisions will be handed down that positively impact citizens, not just citizens of one race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, region, etc.  Will that be fair?  It’s worth a try to find out because right now, it’s not.