These 6 Supreme Court Rulings Prove Conservatives Hate Most Americans
In the 6th month, 6 judges gave 6 rulings to curse us all.
The U.S. Supreme Court tops the judicial branch of our federal government. It is supposed to be a non-partisan body that weighs decisions based on existing laws and previous precedents set by the court itself. However, conservative efforts over the years have now shaped this body into a cesspool of GOP partisan politics representing the views of a minority of Americans. Currently, 6 out of 9 justices are trying to make our country into a dreamland for rich, white, conservative Christians.
That’s not to say that the Supreme Court has always been perfect. They have made terrible calls in the past and have struggled to create a court that is reflective of the people they are supposed to be serving. An elected president appoints Supreme Court justices for a life term. Out of the nine currently serving on the bench, three were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote in 2016, making any choices he—and, by extension, they—made seem out of step with popular opinion. With this in mind, 6 landmark decisions the court made at the end of its term in June should have been been made in a way that wasn’t shocking and devastating to most Americans, but it still was. Let’s review the cases and what impact they have.
Carson v. Makin
One of the biggest founding principles of the United States—despite how many people will complain that those exact words don’t appear in the Constitution—is the separation of church and state, meaning that government and religion should not intertwine. As recently as the 1960s, many Americans once feared having a Catholic president because the Pope might influence them. Most religious institutions also remain tax-exempt, with the same idea to keep religion and government apart.
However, with the Carson v. Makin decision, the court said the state of Maine must allocate taxpayer money to religious schools, along with public schools. This decision erodes the long-held separation of church and state. Religious schools do not need to follow the same curriculum or education standards as public schools. They may teach religious philosophy over scientific fact, with no common public standards in place, yet they are entitled to state funding while public schools have their funds limited. This is also in conflict with 37 state constitutions that ban taxpayer dollars from funding religious schools.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
Further eroding the separation of church and state is the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. A public high school fired a football coach for insisting on leading players in prayer on the field and incorporating prayer during practices and games. The coach claimed he only showed his right to free speech. Although this is an obvious violation of the separation of church and state, the court ruled in the coach’s favor.
As the ACLU says, “The decision significantly erodes the separation of church and state in public schools. The case was brought by Joseph Kennedy, a former football coach in Bremerton, Washington, who sued a public school district for placing him on administrative leave after he repeatedly ignored directives to stop leading his team in mid-field prayers immediately after games. The school determined that Kennedy’s practice violated students’ religious-freedom rights and also created a safety risk at games because Kennedy had orchestrated a public spectacle by inviting media and local politicians to attend. Kennedy claimed that the school’s actions violated his free-speech and free-exercise rights.”
Even more bizarre is that the decision by the court stated that the coach prayed alone and did not force it on his students, so the school had no right to fire him. That is a blatant disregard of the truth to allow Christianity to be preached in schools. So if religious prayer is now allowed to be led by school officials, do you think Jewish people, Muslims, or pagans will have the same freedom to lead their students in prayer as Christians?
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
In the wake of ongoing mass shootings, you would think almost every person would favor more gun control. New York State tried to codify more gun control safety measures into law. The state issued a law requiring gun owners to demonstrate why they needed to carry concealed handguns in public places. The court said the states had no right to go against the Second Amendment and put limits on carrying guns. I would like to take this time to let everyone read the second amendment for themselves:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Where does it say that every person should be allowed a concealed weapon? Or the right to an AR-15? Or that guns shouldn’t be regulated? No, this is about keeping gun fanatics happy under the guise of the Constitution.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
To recap, guns have rights, and Christians have rights, but Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health let us know that people apparently do not have rights over their own bodies. The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade’s 50 years of precedent was based on the nonsense idea that abortions are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so the court cannot rule on the matter and says it should be a matter for voters to decide in each state. I shouldn’t even have to explain what’s absurd about claiming the court can’t rule on things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and then turning around and insisting that it absolutely guarantees a right to carry concealed weapons that didn’t exist when it was written.
This decision triggered many existing state laws outlawing abortion, which were on the books for just this occasion. Some states are even currently trying to pass laws that would limit or punish women from traveling to other states for abortions. The previous court decided Roe v. Wade allowed anyone who can get pregnant to have fair protection under the law and the right to privacy, as stated in the 14th amendment. Many fear that this decision will be a precedent to undo other 14th Amendment-related cases, such as the right to use birth control, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage.
Castro v. Huerta
In 1831, the Supreme Court decided that Native Americans should have sovereignty in their own affairs. That meant anything that happened on designated Native lands would be dealt with as they decide, with no influence from the government.
However, in Castro v. Huerta, the court now says the states have a right to prosecute non-native people who are on tribal land. This one ruling erodes part of the sovereignty of the Native Americans that has been in place for almost 200 years. Hasn’t the American government done enough damage over the years?
West Virginia v. EPA
Under President Richard Nixon, the Clean Air Act of 1970 was passed into law. It allowed for the development of comprehensive regulation of pollution at the state and federal levels. Republican Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under executive action to oversee the law and ensure a healthier America.
In a reality where climate change is very real and damaging the world faster than ever, the court saw the case of West Virginia v. EPA and ruled that the EPA cannot enforce the Clean Air Act or any other environmental regulations if it will be “transformational” to the economy. That means unless previously cleared by Congress, the EPA now cannot force large corporations not to pollute if that company says it will affect the economy. Well, what is more important? The health and wellbeing of the country or corporate greed? While the rest of us suffer, the ultra-rich will get slightly richer.
Where does that leave us?
The only way to “fix” these decisions is to enact federal laws that undo the damage done. However, even if the 2022 midterm elections see the Democrats take an actual majority in Congress, nothing will change until early next year, at the soonest. In the meantime, people will suffer unless state governments step up in a big way.
These decisions also make it clear that the Supreme Court needs to be reassessed. Although the appointments are for life, judges should be held accountable for their actions and can be impeached. Three judges—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett—all lied under oath during their confirmation hearings that they would not overturn Roe v. Wade, no matter what rhetorical tricks they employed to try to claim they didn’t on a technicality. Then, there is Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, is closely linked with trying to overthrow the government during the January 6 insurrection. Thomas should step down or be removed as soon as possible.
The Constitution does not state how many justices should be on the Supreme Court at one time. Throughout our history, the amount has fluctuated from 6 to 10, to our current bench of 9. Congress is the only body that can regulate how many occupy the seats. In fact, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to expand the court to 15 under his New Deal package. Either through impeachment or expansion, something has got to give, or else things will get a lot worse for most of us quickly.
(featured image: Douglas Rissing)
Have a tip we should know? tips@themarysue.com
