Watching The Murder of My Beloved Country
I am in a very dark place right now.
In the past week, the Supreme Court of the United States has gutted some of the most important rights and freedoms Americans have enjoyed for decades.
Even more frightening, the reasoning the conservative Justices have used to support their decisions threaten additional rights.
Here is a rundown of some of the major decisions.
June 21 - Carson v Makin - Maine required to use state funds for private religious schools
June 23 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen - overturns New York’s law outlawing concealed carry except in special circumstances
June 24 - Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization - overturned Roe v Wade and remanded decisions regarding abortion laws to the states
June 27 - Kennedy v Bremerton School District - ruled in favor of football coach who prayed on 50-yard line after games and determined which students received playing time based in part on their participation in the Christian prayers
June 29 - Oklahoma v Castro-Huerta - dramatically expanded state government’s law enforcement powers regarding non-Indians who commit crimes on Native American reservations, which are considered sovereign nations
June 30 - West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency - limited EPA’s ability to regulate emissions from power companies
In less than ten days, SCOTUS decimated abortion rights, gun safety laws, Native American reservation sovereignty, enforcement of the Clean Air Act, and the separation of church and state.
And SCOTUS is nowhere near finished.
The conservative majority, led by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and aided and abetted by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, is determined to return the US to a time when wealthy white men were in charge and no one else had rights. (Yes, I do know that neither Thomas nor Barrett can be considered wealthy white men. Sometimes supporting the patriarchy has benefits.)
In writing for the majority in Dobbs, Alito relied on two 17th century English jurists to support his argument that abortion is not historically accepted. Never mind that at least one of these jurists believed in witchcraft and developed a series of circumstances under which women could be executed as witches.
In his concurring opinion, Thomas made things worse. He stated that all cases that relied on privacy and substantive due process should be examined and overturned. The cases he noted were: Griswold v Connecticut, which granted the right to use contraception; Lawrence v Texas, which removed most sodomy laws for consenting adults; and Obergefell v Hodges, which legalized same sex marriage throughout the US.
(Notably absent was one case - Loving v Virginia - which relied on similar reasoning. It is likely not a coincidence that Loving legalized interracial marriage in all states and territories. Talk about self interest!)
In the most recent case - West Virginia v EPA - Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. The thesis of this opinion is that the Clean Air Act as passed by Congress does not explicitly grant the EPA the authority to regulate power company emissions. The opinion supports the conservative theory that federal agencies are out of control.
It goes on and on.
The Court has already agreed to hear Moore v Harper in its next term. This case addresses the map of North Carolina’s 14 Congressional districts. It will rule on whether state legislatures have absolute authority to set Congressional districts, without any interference from state courts - even if the maps violate state constitutions. Essentially, Republicans from North Carolina are asking SCOTUS to endorse the theories proposed by John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark - and endorsed by Donald Trump - in advance of the 2024 elections.
Dahlia Lithwick, Slate senior editor and legal correspondent, put it best:
Those arguing that the brand-new jurisprudence emerging this week is markedly more cruel, more overtly theological, and more contemptuous of the regulatory state are all correct. But it also reflects a new kind of lawlessness that is frighteningly untethered from fact, science, and objectivity—untethered in ways that should frighten anyone who depends on the court for truth above all things. But one other theme in this radical new jurisprudence seems to be a redefinition of privacy and autonomy in ways that allow men to be at home everywhere they go, and women to be at peace nowhere.
Now do you understand why I’m in a very dark place?