The moral universe no longer bends towards justice

My topic for today is still the Supreme Court and their end of term rulings. With this I’m finally through all of my accumulated tabs and, of course, a few more that were added today. The Democrat’s response to all this will have to wait for another day. April Siese of Daily Kos reported that the Supremes ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases coming out of power plants. That’s because Congress didn’t authorize a set of regulations of this magnitude and consequence. If Congress wants regulations this sweeping they’ll have to write the rules itself. The ruling isn’t as devastating as many feared. The EPA still lives. This decision affects only the rules for regulating power plants. However, the ruling severely impacts how the EPA, and thus Biden and America, can slow the effects of climate change. Also, the precedent has been set to overturn other rules that the EPA – and all other government agencies – created to implement the guidelines set by Congress. House and Senate members do not have the time or expertise to draft and argue over minute details that go into the federal government’s rules. This case was about the Clean Air Act. Coming soon is a case about whether wetlands are waterways, which will target the Clean Water Act. Meteor Blades, who writes about environmental issues for Kos, described the ruling this way:

The Supreme Court just decided to pour gasoline on a planet afire and to slash the tires of the fire trucks.

The he quoted Elena Kagan for the dissent. The excerpt is lengthy, so here’s the summary: Congress very clearly did authorize the EPA to write rules.

Section 111, most naturally read, authorizes EPA to develop the Clean Power Plan—in other words, to decide that generation shifting is the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants churning out carbon dioxide. Evaluating systems of emission reduction is what EPA does. And nothing in the rest of the Clean Air Act, or any other statute, suggests that Congress did not mean for the delegation it wrote to go as far as the text says. In rewriting that text, the Court substitutes its own ideas about delegations for Congress’s. And that means the Court substitutes its own ideas about policymaking for Congress’s. The Court will not allow the Clean Air Act to work as Congress instructed. The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much. The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.

Gabe Oritz of Kos reported that we’re getting confirmation that the conservatives on the Supremes are targeting marriage equality. That confirmation is the same voices that said Roe was safe are now saying Obergefell is safe. It is all part of the same gaslighting they do so well. Joan McCarter of Kos reported that the Supremes took a bite out of voting rights. This time they did it through the shadow docket, so there wasn’t public hearings or an actual written decision with dissent. The case was gerrymandered districts in Louisiana. A lower federal court ordered a new map. The case was appealed to the Supremes who halted the lower court, allowing the gerrymandered districts to remain. McCarter turned her attention to Democrats. Sen. Gary Peters is the Chair of the Democratic National Senatorial Committee, a national group trying to get Democrats elected to the Senate. Peters says he 100% focused on getting Democrats elected and expanding their majority. McCarter wrote this “vote harder” drive isn’t going to get us anywhere (besidesm we voted harder in 2020 and it really hasn’t gotten us what the country needs). Between racial gerrymandering and voter suppression – two of many voting related things Democrats could have done something about and didn’t – it may not matter how we vote. Stephen Wolf of Kos Elections reported the Supremes have accepted a case for next term that could “shatter democracy.” I don’t think he is being dramatic. Again it has to do with gerrymandering, at least on the surface.

Republicans are now asking the Supreme Court to rule that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures near-absolute power to set all manner of federal election laws, including district maps—regardless of whether state constitutions place limits on abuses such as gerrymandering. Republicans contend that the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which states that the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof" gives state legislatures—and only legislatures—the power at the state level to shape the rules governing federal elections in their states. Only Congress or federal courts, not state courts—and possibly not citizen-initiated constitutional amendment or even governors—can override such rules.

Back in 2015 the Court rejected that premise when it approved Arizona’s independent redistricting commission. That paved the way for Michigan to pass a similar constitution amendment in 2018. Up to now the phrase “by the Legislature thereof” has meant the legislature sets voting laws with the governor’s signature (as is done with all other legislation) and according to the state’s constitution as interpreted by state courts. Wolf reminds us that an unbalanced Senate (70% of the members elected by 30% of the population) gave Republican majorities that confirmed five of the six current conservative justices and a president who lost the popular vote nominated three of them. Not surprisingly, these justices support minority rule. It is time to expand the Court if we want to maintain free elections. Helaine Olen of Washington Post Opinions tweeted a link to a column she wrote about corporations offering to get their employees to needed abortion care:

Abortion rights should be law, not a corporate perk. “These new corporate benefits come with enormous caveats that seem to ensure the most advantaged employees receive aid, while those with more uncertain incomes do not.” Are you a part-time employee working uncertain hours? Receive your health insurance elsewhere? A contract worker? Good luck accessing corporate abortion travel assistance. “There are, to be blunt, loopholes you could drive a delivery truck through.”

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut tweeted a summary of the week:

Overturning Roe, rewriting both the First and Second Amendments, and strangling government’s ability to combat climate change, all in one week, is basically the Court saying to Congress, “Get out of the way, we are in charge of the country now”. Just a stunning turn of events. Our first job is to educate the public about this anti-democratic power grab and how radical the Court’s political agenda is. Then we need to focus on the elections. And win enough seats to be in a position to save democracy from these politicians disguised as justices.

Yes, a stunning turn of events, though, Senator, you left out the part the Senate should be doing – reining in a rogue court. Or expanding it. Greg Dworkin, in a pundit roundup for Kos, quoted EJ Dionne of WaPo – we either enlarge the Supreme Court or we surrender:

Liberals are at a special disadvantage when it comes to confronting a radically conservative Supreme Court because most of them are, by nature, institutionalists. They are wary of upsetting long-standing arrangements for fear of mimicking the destructive behavior of the other side and, in the process, legitimizing it. But the aggressiveness of the right has turned this procedural delicacy into a rationalization for surrender.

McCarter wrote that along with same-sex marriage and contraception, Social Security is also on the chopping block:

Since the Social Security Act was enacted into law on August 14, 1935, Republicans have tried to tear it down. The thought of all that money being safely stored away by the government to help secure dignified and sustainable retirements for regular working people has rankled the Republicans all these decades. Elected officials have tried and failed.

There have been many attempts to weaken or gut social security. Each time seniors threatening elected officials has prompted them to back down. So they’ll do it through the unelected courts. And with it they’ll get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and the rest of the social safety net – all the way back to the New Deal of the 1930s.

The foundation on what passes for intellectual thought in the far right to do so has been built. All it’s going to take is the right set of challenges, which Trump-packed federal courts will happily provide. Unless they are stopped.

I mentioned this to my friend and debate partner and he promptly went into debate mode. Won’t happen, he said. The American People won’t let it happen. I hope he’s right. Considering how the American people couldn’t stop overturning the highly popular right to an abortion I’m not sure how the people could stop the overturning of Social Security. My debate partner didn’t elaborate on who he expects will do the stopping and how it will happen. A week ago Mark Sumner of Kos wrote that we’re heading to the Great Regression and the end of the American Experiment.

America is exceptional. It’s exceptional in that as other developed nations are moving forward, so-called conservative forces are dragging America back. As the rest of the world is advancing toward an era in which they recognize the value of all people, embrace the role of government in moderating the inherent conflict between individual rights and societal benefits, and understand the importance of protecting what remains of the natural environment, the United States is—suddenly and unexpectedly—doing the exact opposite. The United States is currently engaged in a project under which the number of people valued by society is being sharply curtailed. It’s engaged in a project to destroy the whole concept of a “general good.” It’s determined to ignore consequences of environmental damage, of racism, and of gun violence even as those consequences are visible in fire and blood.

The original Roe ruling was part of Martin Luther King Jr.’s comment that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Change for the better may take a while but kept coming, including same-sex marriage. That was impossible to conceive just 20 years before.

The end of Roe is a signal that this is no longer true. And in fact, has not have been true for some time. ... Deliberate, intensive, vicious efforts to not just destroy the rights, but the lives of immigrants, Black Americans, trans Americans, every American who dares stand up against a marching tide of ignorance and hate. All of these things are the result of a multi-decade effort, but now that the last firewall has been burned away, the collapse is coming rapidly. ... It’s turning America into an a pariah state; one that represents ignorance, repression, and hate. One that is becoming an object of loathing around the world. One that has enemies drooling over what they can snatch in a post-America world, and has allies planning for the day when they have to sever that gangrened limb.

On Thursday Sumner wrote this Supreme Court is making the nation ungovernable.

Trump’s coup attempt failed. But the Republicans have found six new despots who are cheerfully assaulting not just the rights of every American, but the foundations of democracy. They are unelected. They answer to no one. They’re there for life. In two weeks they’ve rubbed out rights that thousands fought and died to obtain over the course of decades. They have blown away the basis of functional government. They are erasing not just progress, not only democracy, but America as a nation—and they’re doing it quickly. The only thing that makes the U.S. Supreme Court sustainable at all is the idea that the members will act in good faith to interpret and apply the law for the benefit of the nation.

Yeah, there have been ghastly decisions. There have also been decisions with sublime far-reaching vision.

The current Supreme Court is not interpreting the rules of the nation. It is redefining the nation: remaking America in the image of a radical minority over the express wishes and written law of the majority. It’s not the “Judicial activism” Republicans have fretted over so long. It’s a Court coup. ... Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead … toward a nation that is, not figuratively, but literally ungovernable.

They are gutting regulations on safety, housing, education, and others that cannot be challenged. They gutted the Miranda ruling (surely you remember cop shows where the arresting officer intones, “You have the right to remain silent.”). Law enforcement no longer has to protect rights. They act in defiance of the will of the majority, even in defiance of the not quite representative Congress. This is a national emergency if America is going to maintain a functioning government.

Unlike most nations, there is very little safety net provided in case of Court gone wild. In fact, there’s only one practical answer: Expand the Court. The only answer to the six red-hot despots now ruling the nation is to turn them back to what they are in reality—the most extreme voices of a radical minority. Expanding the Court isn’t just the only hope to reverse the disastrous ruling on Roe, it’s the last, best hope for America.

In a third post Sumner wrote that Clarence Thomas wants to put police back in your bedroom. And a thirsty attorney general from some Republican state will be glad to feed the court the chance to do so. Sumner concluded:

Thomas is seriously advocating a return to the time when the government could smash their way into someone’s bedroom and charge them with a criminal act for who or how they were having sex, or for trying to prevent that sex from resulting in a pregnancy. Those cases will come to the Court with his guaranteed vote already in their corner, and with helpful notes on how to win over the handful of radical right votes that they need. Because he’s already demonstrated that he’s not just eager to see hear these cases, Thomas is ready to argue them.

Leah McElrath tweeted a few days ago:

I don’t know about y’all, but, the more everything that is happening sinks in, the more anticipatory grief I’m feeling. Whole new layers of it exist, apparently, even though I knew all this was going to happen and pre-mourned for years after the 2016 election. I really need to cry. I can feel the need in my body and my face but I worry I might not be able to stop. I don’t care about myself. I’ve had my life. But this is not the world I wanted to leave my daughter and is the opposite of the world I spent my lifetime working to create. I am just so furious. And indescribably sad. I don’t even have words. Things are going to get so much worse too. There’s more to come. The suffering will be immense, much of it preventable and unnecessary. And we will bear it. Because we must. For each other, if not ourselves. All we have is each other. Human civilization dates back to the first healed human femur: civilization exists because we had the resources to enable us to make the choice to care for one another. Obtain the resources. Care for one another. All we have is each other. For those new to feeling political rage, I want to assure you it’s okay. Yours is not the rage of resentment and selfishness. It’s a rage born out of love. It’s a righteous rage. Recognizing injustice and allowing it to enrage you expands your heart and connects you to others.

Walter Einenkel of Kos noted that the Supremes are stocked with “conservative Christians.” That term seems necessary

because they all seem to follow a highly politicized, extremely ardent, and narrow version of Christianity. In fact, whether or not they believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and believing in him leads to the salvation of one’s soul is hard to know, since most of their decision-making seems to revolve around harming the majority of God’s creatures.

Einenkel reported the hashtag #NotChristianity is trending on Twitter. He quoted several tweets with that tag. Here are some of them. Rebecca Mahmout tweeted the teachings of a Republican Jesus, which includes these verses:

* Feed only those that look like us & pass the drug test. * If they are in need and are strangers, deport them. * Blessed shall be those who take away healthcare from the sick and meek. * The rich and powerful shall inherit the earth. * Do not kill – unless they really deserve it.

Cosmo tweeted:

Sorry Conservative Christians, but spending eternal life with you people is not the selling point you think it is.

From Ron Jackson:

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. – James Madison

And from Michael Swartz

I really hope all the people having to say "That's not Christianity" know how Muslims felt ever since 2001.