START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,375,828 people care about Politics

SCOTUS in Review: Justice if You’re Rich, Powerful, or a Christian

SCOTUS in Review: Justice if You’re Rich, Powerful, or a Christian

In an interview in 2007, just after completing his first term as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts expressed his desire to reduce the “personalization of judicial politics” and to create a court that works as one. He wanted to emulate the courts of SCOTUS past where the Chief Justice guided the Court with an even hand. Most importantly, he wanted a court of consensus.

Eight years later, Chief Justice Roberts’ dream remains unrealized.

The most recent Supreme Court term has revealed an increasing divide within the usually tight-lipped court. Even when there has been unanimity in rulings, separate opinions have often been issued where a justice would concur in general, but emphasize their disagreement with some underlying principle. The idea of separate opinions was one of the things that Chief Justice Roberts wanted to avoid. Obviously, that plan did not work.

Looking over the past term, and from politics to religion to women’s rights, the Roberts Court has repeatedly sought to increase the rights of those who wish to oppress others. Their rulings have interpreted the Constitution in ways that seem to be moving our nation further away from a “justice for all” mantra to one that favors the rich, the powerful, and the male. Justice for me but not for thee, indeed.

For example, this term the Court allowed individuals to fund unlimited amounts of candidates and political organizations. They also said that a group that was accused of lying during a campaign could challenge a law that makes it illegal to make false statements in ads during campaigns. In addition, the Court limited the power of presidential recess appointments to when Congress was not in session for 10 days or more. Interestingly, discord was obvious in that unanimous decision when Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, wrote that the Court had expanded a “narrow tool” into a far reaching “weapon” for the president.

In terms of civil rights, it’s been a mixed bag. The Court ruled that voters are allowed to stop public universities from having affirmative action programs in Michigan. However, there were some bright spots, such as the unanimous ruling that police need a warrant before searching a suspect’s cell phone. The Court also put further limits on the death penalty by striking down arbitrary legislative determinations of when a person is deemed mentally ill. This decision was not unanimous though, as the most conservative members of the court dissented, saying the majority had left doctors and psychiatrists in charge of determining constitutional law. In essence they seem to feel that the states, not science, should determine who is mentally ill.

Speaking of science, the Court’s distaste for science was also evident in their ruling in the controversial Hobby Lobby case.  The Court ruled that Hobby Lobby did not have to provide birth control coverage in its insurance policies because of the owners’ deeply held religious beliefs. Those “beliefs” said that scientifically proven and safe birth control methods such as the IUD or emergency contraception are “abortifacients.” The Court bought into the notion that hormonal birth control prevents fertilized eggs from implanting and that this is just like an abortion. Aside from the fact that none of this is true, the Court ruled that simply because the owners of a for-profit company believed it, they didn’t have to pay for coverage for their female employees.

Of course, if those women need to have an abortion, they will also be forced to listen to the “counseling” outside reproductive health clinics since the Court ruled (unanimously) that buffer zones targeting anti-choice advocates violate free speech rights.

The majority in the Hobby Lobby decision were all male and all Catholic, and it was that same majority that ruled in another religious test case. In Town of Greece v Galloway, the court stated that a Christian prayer referencing a deity during a public meeting did not violate the First Amendment Rights of non-Christians. While legislative prayer has long been upheld, it has generally been accepted that public meetings should avoid any semblance of endorsing a particular religion. In this case, the majority said if the non-Christians don’t like it, they can just leave–perhaps that’s what the Court thinks women who work for Hobby Lobby should do as well?

The dissenting justices in both cases included all three women, one of whom is a non-practicing Catholic. They pointed out how out of touch with reality the majority justices appear. In general, the dissenting justices pointed out the slippery slope of letting religious beliefs trump secular laws and how it could lead to coercion, even oppression, of those who do not share those beliefs. That seems to already be manifesting.

The day after the Hobby Lobby ruling, a religious college was also given an exemption from the ACA birth control mandate. There are now several organizations asking for religious exemptions so they can refuse to hire LGBT employees. Mississippi has already said that businesses don’t have to serve certain people if it violates their beliefs (like gay people).

With all this the Roberts Court is sending a clear message: that for those that do not share the values of the rich, powerful, Christian (and probably white) male, justice in the United States is probably not for you.

The Supreme Court has long made rulings that have changed the course of our nation.  Some for the worse, such as the 1857 Dred Scott decision which ruled that slavery was constitutional and people of color could not be U.S. Citizens. It would take a civil war and a constitutional amendment to override that ruling. How far will we have to go before we can reverse the course set by this Court?

Read more: , , , , , , ,

Photo credit: Thinkstock.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

150 comments

+ add your own
9:42AM PDT on Jul 29, 2014

Abolish permanent appointments!!

12:06PM PDT on Jul 23, 2014

I'm 0 for 3.

11:15AM PDT on Jul 19, 2014

@Robert, I agrew with your comment to John Abstinence Only keep anaspiring between your knees.

I think John should also keep his hands in his pants as well. That way he'd stop making these inane comments over and over again about abstinence because his hands would be kept away from his keyboard. Ha!

12:02AM PDT on Jul 17, 2014

Poor America, going backwards under the aegis of this SCrOTUS.

2:16PM PDT on Jul 16, 2014

Thanks.

6:13AM PDT on Jul 15, 2014

Everyone should be equal in front of law

5:06PM PDT on Jul 14, 2014

We have FIVE CONSERVATIVE MALE CATHOLICS on the Supreme Court - making a PERMANENT MAJORITY.
They DEFINITELY VOTED THEIR RELIGION when it came to the Hobby Lobby case.
Skin color doesn't matter - Clarence Thomas is Black.
CATHOLICISM PLUS GENDER, MATTER.
We have ONE Catholic WOMAN on the Supreme Court, Sotomayor. She DISSENTED.
We have TWO OTHER WOMEN on the Supreme Court, and one more Man. THEY ARE ALL JEWISH {at least by descent!}.
So, FIVE MALE CATHOLICS and THREE Jews and ONE Female Catholic.
Sorry, but this IS SIGNIFICANT.
The Five Catholic MALES vote the way the EVIL, REACTIONARY CATHOLIC HIERARCHY want them to. The Catholic Hierarchy, the USCCB - the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops - in the U.S., is WAY TO THE RIGHT of most actual Catholics in the U.S.
The Catholic Hierarchy and the Evangelicals, represent REACTIONARY "CHRISTIAN" WOMAN-HATING ANTI-HUMAN groups...

12:16PM PDT on Jul 14, 2014

So From now on you will only have sex with protection John??? you will mosly keep your dick in your pants?? You will pay for any babies you may create?

12:13PM PDT on Jul 14, 2014

Scalia wantds to act like we are stilll a tiny grouping of colonies so we don’t need a government. Our country is now HUGELY complex and Corprorations allowed to become too big to fail have complicated it even more.

The competing interests are richer than our country in many way and holds it to ransom.
Freedom is not meant to only be for the rich! Either that or the constitutuion and every history teacher we ever had lied to us for decades. A well functioning government is nothing to fear unlesss you are filthy rich and wish to subjugate even further, anyone not as rich as you. The problem is the people in power (the rich) have eliminated, one by one, many of the checks and balances to their power.

11:33AM PDT on Jul 14, 2014

Scalia's proposed rule is that the president can only make recess appointments in the brief (a few minutes, usually) annual gap between formal year-long “sessions”; not only that, he can only fill vacancies that also arise during those few minutes or hours.

In other words, the clause would be all but meaningless.

Now that the Senate can return at a moment's notice, he says, the Recess Clause “is, or rather, should be, an anachronism” like, say, the appendix. It's inflamed now, let's cut it out.

Scalia would like the courts to step into tussles between White House and Capitol that they have previously wisely stayed out of.

With one more vote, that cry of “Havoc!” would be law instead of dictum.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

meet our writers

Colleen H. Colleen H. is an Online Campaigner with Care2 and a recent transplant to San Francisco from the East... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.