The fragile legitimacy of the Supreme Court


The legal landscape of the past weeks and months has prompted questions of which people and entities are legitimate interpreters and enforcers of the law and what happens when you take the law into your own hands. Mississippi and other states took the recent changes in personnel on the Supreme Court as an invitation to defy the Court’s constitutional rulings on abortion, and those states now seem likely to prevail.

…The newest conservative Justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, signalled no qualms about overruling Roe as wrongly decided, which would make a majority of at least five. At a time when the Court’s legitimacy appears extremely fragile, it is telling that the majority’s response to having the supremacy of the Court’s decisions defied seems to be acquiescence and approval…

Any vigilante revivalism today goes hand in hand with private citizens’ increased ability to carry guns in public. The Supreme Court is currently considering the most important gun-rights case since it held, more than a decade ago, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense. On November 3rd, it heard arguments challenging a New York law that allows a license for the concealed carry of handguns outside the home, but only upon a demonstration of “proper cause.” The perverse, self-fulfilling truth is that, as gun ownership has proliferated, an individual’s claim to need a gun for protection has become more plausible…

During last week’s arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lamented, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?”…But the point of a fundamental constitutional right is that it shouldn’t be at the people’s mercy, particularly when the composition of the Court itself has been shifted through political means for this purpose.

Over decades, though both Right and Left have made comparatively minor shifts in composition of the Supreme Court, there has never before been an effort which in broad strokes is convened to remove precedence. In this instance, the Roe vs Wade decision which is held by the general assemblies of Left and Right in the GOUSA as expanding freedom for women to make decisions qualitatively affecting their lives. Yet another quality of life hated by what passes for the 21st Century Republican Party.

9 thoughts on “The fragile legitimacy of the Supreme Court

  1. Illegitimate authority says:

    “The Rule of Six: A newly radicalized Supreme Court is poised to reshape the nation”
    “It’s time to say it: The conservatives on the Supreme Court lied to us all”
    “They weren’t just evasive, or vague, or deceptive. They lied. They lied to Congress and to the country, claiming they either had no opinions at all about abortion, or that their beliefs were simply irrelevant to how they would rule. They would be wise and pure, unsullied by crass policy preferences, offering impeccably objective readings of the Constitution.
    It. Was. A. Lie.”

  2. Angle of repose says:

    Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law
    Roberts joined the high court’s three liberal justices in discussing the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.
    The chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, warned Friday that the Supreme Court risks losing its own authority if it allows states to circumvent the courts as Texas did with its near-total abortion ban.
    It is a basic principle, he wrote, “that the Constitution is the ‘fundamental and paramount law of the nation,’ and ‘[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'” He cited as proof the landmark 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, which established the principle of judicial review, allowing the court to nullify laws that violate the Constitution.
    “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery,” he said, quoting the 1809 U.S. v. Peters case, which found that state legislatures can’t overrule federal courts. “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”

  3. Dieback says:

    (Fox News): “Supreme Court puts an end to pandemic of the autocrat : The American work force is now safe from the unnecessary threat of its government”
    (CNN) “How the Supreme Court rules during a pandemic shows what may happen next”
    (6/29/18) “A New Lochner Era : In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court systematically gutted regulations to favor business and attack organized labor. Those dark days have returned.”

  4. Wanna bet says:

    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday for a pair of cases that asked whether the government should be allowed to detain non-citizens indefinitely. Both cases center on immigrants who are detained on immigration violations and fighting for protection from deportation on the grounds that returning to their countries would put their lives in danger. It’s a legal process that could take months or years.

  5. 6 to 3 says:

    Supreme Court tees up wetlands fight that could cuff EPA
    “The Supreme Court only takes up a tiny fraction of the petitions that come before it, and the justices’ surprising decision to get involved in the Sacketts’ case could throw a wrench into EPA’s planned rulemaking defining what are “waters of the U.S.,” or WOTUS.”
    Also (11/2/21): “EPA said it is still working on new power plant carbon rules, despite a move by the Supreme Court last week that could have repercussions for the kind of regulation that would ultimately pass legal muster.
    Administrator Michael Regan said yesterday that EPA would “continue to move forward” with regulations to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, even as the justices consider the scope of authority the agency has under the Clean Air Act to promulgate such rules.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.