Court of Supreme Politics

Blind? Just? Or another entity entirely?

Sthewriter
New Writers Welcome
6 min readDec 17, 2021

--

Photo by Marielam1

One afternoon, I was in my childhood bedroom completing my sixth grade homework assignment for history class. There were a handful of questions that I had to answer in four paragraphs. Short essays. The particular question that left me bewildered escapes me but I skipped over to my mother’s bedroom for clarity.

She was into one of her novels and I didn’t want to interrupt so I stood at her door and slowly rubbernecked until she glanced over her shoulder. A laugh leapt from her chest. She wanted something sweet to eat. She asked if I wanted a snack before dinner. “Yes, please!” was my gleeful response. With that, I followed her to the kitchen where she began making a three-layered chocolate-chip coconut cake from scratch.

What comes next was not one of the essays I had to address but a thought that it lead me to. After a few minutes I asked her:

Why is it important to know what political ideology — and party — a Supreme Court Justice is aligned with? Should that matter when the highest court in our country is supposed to be impartial?

It was cute. Romantic, even. I was a kid. The consequences were fascinating to me since I was relentlessly inquisitive.

Our eyes met over bowls of cracked eggs, meticulously sifted flour, butter, cocoa, and shredded coconut. My mother and I discussed my inquiry. She informed me of the danger of the court tipping one way or the other. Furthermore, she directly spoke of the rights and laws that protected marginalized Americans as a whole. Alarmed, she was clear as it related to the notion that politicians with a set agenda could and would challenge anything, at the right moment. She argued that vulnerable Americans would be crushed if the political engine on either side acquired the political verve to intensify their power and aim it at a target. Even if said target was protected by constitutional law.

A ruling from the court today, protecting a specific right and codifying that right into law, is no guarantee that the same law will remain protected for eternity.

My mother said that as I helped her achieve the condition she needed her cake batter to be in before she deemed it to be oven-ready. Honestly, I didn’t assist as much as I licked the blender utensils and swiped chocolate chips.

At present, what changes have taken place in America that justify a constitutional about-face in Roe vs. Wade? From the time it was protected under the Constitution to a holiday season where many Americans gorge themselves on holiday treats, get excited about the upcoming year and then revert back to their bad habits the third week of January, why is it under threat?

The first duty of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. What constitutional change has occurred since Roe vs. Wade that will allow abortion protections to be (possibly) overturned this upcoming summer?

Not one.

However, the court is dominated by Republicans. In this case, the difference is the feelings — and political leanings — of those serving on the highest court. There is no other justifiable reason as to why Rowe vs. Wade is dangling off the side of a mountain cliff.

Laws are changed when there is a change in thought.

There are enough minds on the Supreme Court that think a certain way. This isn’t objective interpretation of law. Impartiality of the court was lost when current Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination by President Barack Obama was blocked by Senate Republicans. Notably, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) because there was close to nine months left in Obama’s term. I’m sure there were other occasions that challenged the objective nature of the court. Got one: The episode where recent Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, used her McConnell stamped Republican fast-pass through her confirmation hearings while showing her inability to name the entirety of the five freedoms guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the First Amendment of the Constitution. McConnell got her nominated and confirmed. She took the judicial oath one month and a day after being selected by President Donald Trump. She’s a judge now. For the rest of her life.

The Voting Rights Act was ripped to shreds in 2013 — Shelby County v. Holder — and sold for spare parts from state-to-state by the Supreme Court. Where those states can choose how aggressive they wish to be in terms of voter suppression. They’re not sitting on their hands, whistling with a glass of lemonade. Conservative Justices melted the Voting Rights Act. Preclearance? Minorities don’t need protection. All are treated equal in America. That marketing slogan must never be forgotten.

This happened in a high, no, the highest, court of justice. In an America that shuttered thousands of polling places in neighborhoods that serve African-Americans and other Americans of color from 2012 up to today. It sounds intentionally targeted because it is. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion after the 5–4 vote concluded was: “voting discrimination was no longer as severe as it was when the Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965.” That is a certain way to consider the subject.

Any law that was once protected can be undone. Imagine the protections that can be reversed if a specifically narrow interpretation of governing, permeates a branch of government? America is a backsliding democracy as we speak. Increase the temperature. Maybe the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s are roaring back. Those are the decades that a lot of Americans pine for and romanticize.

Democrats and Republicans battle over the White House and the chambers of Congress — and will do so until our democracy completely ends, repairs itself, lands squarely in the middle, etc. It’s a dance they’ll engage in for perpetuity.

Turn the Supreme Court over. All nine judges need to go. Although I’d favor retaining Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court needs absolute reform. Nine spots. Nine Independents. Abolish lifetime appointments for the seats since they are unelected and include a term limit of 20 years.

Allow the Judicial Branch of the U.S. government to act independent of the political waves of the day. Of course, individuals can lean left or right, politically, but a detailed and exhaustive examination of all future nominees to the court, I believe, can uncover true political independents.

Lifetime Democrats and Republicans exist. Is it a wild thought exercise to believe that similarly dedicated Independents are citizens of the United States?

If the Supreme Court isn’t objective, what is it supposed to be? As of this moment, it’s a political tool. I can’t see how anyone could take the opposite opinion. It’s a completely partisan institution. Partisan judges are appointed to hear cases that are partisan no matter how they’re viewed. This is by design.

Current Republicans are studying doctrines of fascism — and poisoning the levers of government at all levels. They’re detestable. They also have control of the Supreme Court through connected conservative thought. The court shouldn’t be a pendulum swinging on a physician’s desk. Appointments to the court have influence that can be measured over decades.

Democrats are attempting to govern, at the very least, but they’re helpless in combating their colleagues. They’re weak to act. Holding out hope that their Republican coworkers will “come to their senses.” They won’t. Not until they install a President-King and keep their vigilance in forming their desired version of the United States.

I asked my mother why aren’t all nine Supreme Court Justices Independent? It seemed incredibly reasonable to me as a pre-teen — and it hasn’t changed.

A second laugh and a sly smirk took over her face as she slid the cake into the oven and set the timer.

America would never allow that.

We ate ice cream afterwards. She cut me a massive slice of cake the next morning for our conversation to eat with my lunch. As a mother she knew that sending her son out, with a piece of cake the size and weight of a brick, was an easy way for me to have a second breakfast on the walk to school.

--

--