In several important recent decisions, the Supreme Court seems oblivious to the effects in the real world of their decisions. It is of course a matter of debate whether such consequences should be considered or whether the constitution should simply be interpreted for what it says -- and let the chips fall where they may.
I may be at the opposite end of the spectrum from "origionalists" and "strict constructionists," like Scalia and Thomas; but my common sense tells me that the highest court in the land should consider the effects of its decisions on the welfare of the people and the country, at least in a general way.
I don't mean that any time someone's life is going to be made harder, that decision should go the other way. Obviously there are constitutional principles that must be upheld. But where there is clearly leeway to interpret -- and stay within those general principles -- I believe the consequences on society should be taken into account as one factor in the decisions. As I recall in her confirmation hearings, Justice Sonya Sotomayor said something similar.
Some of the recent troubleing decisions I have in mind are: Citizens United and the more recent extension that are having a devastating effect on our political system; the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, the consequences of which are being demonstrated all over by states passing laws to limit the voting of their opponents' presumed supporters; and yesterday's ruling that abolished the buffer zone around abortion clinics that required protestors to stay 25 feet from the entrance. The court says that the streets are a prime forum for the exercise of free speech, actually citing that the protestors in question are simply some citizens wanting "to have a quiet conversation" with other citizens -- a perfectly reasonable exercise of free speech.
This symplistic characterization completely ignores the serious, dangerous, murderous mobs that have become these "free speach" exercisers whose gorilla tactics include physically blocadeing the entrances, forming human walls of screaming people with intimidating signs, trying to induce fear and guilt into those seeking abortions. And this does not even address the actual murders of doctors that have been conducted at abortion clinics
If I am not mistaken, John Roberts wrote all of these decisions. Although Scalia and Thomas are more reactionary, Roberts seems the most blithely oblivious, at least in the wording of his opinions. While Scalia and Thomas may be scathing, Thomas seems blandly blind -- and thus -- maddenly clueless to the real world effects.
And now we have their latest concerning the president's power to make recess appointments. True, it was a narrow decision in that it doesn't take away the power to make recess appointments. But it interpreted the case in point as not truly a recess. In fact, it was a political ploy by the Republicans, specifically and for no other reason but to thwart the president's power to make appointments. They held sham sessions every three days, with only one member present, and claimed that they were not on recess, even though everyone else went home for a long summer vacation.
The reality SCOTUS ignores here is the obstructionism of the opposition party in Congress that is paralyzing the Executive Branch by refusing to consider the presidential nominees. Making recess appointments is the only way he could get anyone appointed -- and then the Republicans were blocking that with a sham manipulation of the rules. And now SCOTUS has said the good guys have to stick to the letter of the law no matter what the bad guys do to interfere with their doing their job.
Legal scholars -- and obviously the liberal justices, since this was a 9-0 decision -- would say that they are not oblivious to the effects but that there are other laws to deal with these bad consequences, even though congress may not yet passed them, nor is likely to in this congress.
Still, this rates a huge BAH HUMBUG !!!! And a pox upon them all.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment