CAN AMERICA SURVIVE ANOTHER TERM OF THIS COURT? WE'RE NOT SO SURE
Ladies and gentlemen, buckle up because American democracy is in for a wild ride. The question on everyone's mind is: can America stand another Supreme Court term? Well, let's take a look at the changes made by the court since Trump appointed three conservative justices and see if we can come up with an answer.
First of all, let's just say that the Supreme Court has been busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. They've taken on cases that range from LGBTQ+ rights to abortion to immigration. And let's not forget about the recent confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, which has brought the total number of conservative justices to six.
Now, some people might argue that having a conservative majority on the court is a good thing. After all, they're just interpreting the Constitution, right? Wrong. These justices have been making decisions that would make even Judge Judy raise an eyebrow.
For example, they recently ruled that LGBTQ+ people can be fired from their jobs just for being who they are. And let's not forget about their decision to uphold a Louisiana law that would have severely restricted access to abortion. These decisions are not only harmful to marginalized communities but also a direct attack on our democracy.
So, can America stand another Supreme Court term? Honestly, it's hard to say. But one thing is for sure: something needs to change. Here are a few ideas:
1. Expand the court: This might sound radical, but it's been done before. In fact, the number of justices on the Supreme Court has changed several times throughout history. By adding more justices, we can create a more balanced court that reflects the diversity of our country.
2. Term limits: Justices currently serve for life, which means that their decisions can have an impact on our country for decades. By implementing term limits, we can ensure that new voices and perspectives are brought to the court on a regular basis.
3. Get involved: We can't just sit back and wait for the Supreme Court to make decisions that affect our lives. We need to get involved in our communities, support organizations that fight for justice, and vote in every election.
In conclusion, the damage done to American democracy by the current Supreme Court cannot be ignored. But we still have hope. By taking action and demanding change, we can create a more just and equitable society for all. And who knows, maybe one day we'll look back on this time and laugh at how crazy things were. Or maybe we'll just cry. Either way, let's keep fighting.
A look at Supreme Court term that ended affirmative action, debt relief https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/10/stats-supreme-court-student-debt-relief-takeways/70378410007/
THE DEFT DIVE
Some of the most controversial cases of the 6-3 Roberts court are:
- - **Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)**: The court overturned **Roe v. Wade (1973)** and **Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)**, which had established a constitutional right to abortion and prohibited states from imposing an undue burden on women seeking to terminate their pregnancies. The court upheld a Mississippi law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality, finding that the state had a compelling interest in protecting fetal life and that the law did not impose an undue burden on women¹.
- - **Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023)**: The court overturned **Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)** and its progeny, which had allowed colleges and universities to use race as one factor among many in their admissions policies to promote diversity and remedy past discrimination. The court struck down Harvard's holistic consideration of race as part of an applicant's background, holding that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that any use of race in admissions was subject to strict scrutiny¹.
- - **Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)**: The court upheld two Arizona voting laws that restricted ballot collection and invalidated ballots cast in the wrong precinct, rejecting claims that they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and discriminated against minority voters. The court adopted a narrow interpretation of Section 2, finding that it required plaintiffs to show that a voting rule caused a substantial disparity in opportunities for minority voters, and that other factors, such as the state's interest in preventing fraud, could justify such rules².
- - **Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021)**: The court struck down a California law that required nonprofit organizations to disclose their major donors to the state attorney general, finding that it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of association. The court applied exacting scrutiny to the law, finding that it imposed a widespread burden on donors' privacy rights and chilled their participation in expressive activities, and that the state had failed to show a sufficiently important interest or a narrow tailoring of the law².
- - **Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021)**: The court ruled that a California regulation that granted union organizers access to agricultural employers' property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, amounted to a taking of private property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The court rejected the argument that the regulation was merely a limitation on the right to exclude others from one's property, and held that it created a permanent physical occupation that triggered a per se rule requiring compensation².
These cases are controversial because they reflect a sharp right turn by the court on issues such as abortion rights, affirmative action, voting rights, campaign finance, and property rights. They also show the influence of Trump's appointees, who have joined forces with the other conservative justices to form a solid majority that often overrides the dissenting views of the liberal justices¹². Some critics have argued that these rulings undermine democracy, civil rights, and social justice, while some supporters have praised them for protecting constitutional freedoms, state sovereignty, and public safety¹².
I hope this helps you understand some of the most controversial cases of the 6-3 Roberts court. If you want to learn more, you can follow these links:
Bing, 7/10/2023
(1) The Roberts Court Isn’t Getting More Moderate. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/07/10/the-roberts-court-isnt-getting-more-moderate/.
(2) How John Roberts exhibited his power in the Supreme Court ... - The Hill. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4085653-how-john-roberts-exhibited-his-power-in-the-supreme-courts-biggest-decisions/.
(3) Roberts Court - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_Court.
The major 6-3 decisions of the Supreme Court since Trump's appointees. Here are some of the cases that have been decided by a 6-3 conservative majority:
- - **Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee**: The court upheld two Arizona voting laws that restrict ballot collection and invalidate ballots cast in the wrong precinct, rejecting claims that they violated the Voting Rights Act and discriminated against minority voters¹².
- - **Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta**: The court struck down a California law that required nonprofit organizations to disclose their major donors to the state attorney general, finding that it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of association¹².
- - **Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid**: The court ruled that a California regulation that granted union organizers access to agricultural employers' property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, amounted to a taking of private property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment¹².
- - **Jones v. Mississippi**: The court upheld the sentence of life without parole for a juvenile offender who was convicted of murder when he was 15 years old, holding that the Eighth Amendment does not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility before imposing such a sentence².
- - **Fulton v. City of Philadelphia**: The court sided with a Catholic foster care agency that refused to work with same-sex couples as potential foster parents, ruling that the city of Philadelphia violated the agency's free exercise of religion by terminating its contract².
These decisions are controversial because they reflect a sharp right turn by the court on issues such as voting rights, campaign finance, property rights, criminal justice and religious liberty. They also show the influence of Trump's appointees, who have joined forces with the other conservative justices to form a solid majority that often overrides the dissenting views of the liberal justices¹². Some critics have argued that these rulings undermine democracy, civil rights and social justice, while some supporters have praised them for protecting constitutional freedoms, state sovereignty and public safety¹².
Bing, 7/10/2023
(1) Major 6-3 rulings foreshadow a sharper Supreme Court right turn - CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/politics/supreme-court-6-3-conservative-liberal/index.html.
(2) Trump's appointees are turning the Supreme Court to the right with .... https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/26/politics/trump-kavanaugh-gorsuch-barrett-supreme-court/index.html.
(3) Trump’s legacy is now the Supreme Court - POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/trump-legacy-supreme-court-422058.
(4) Trump’s judges will call the shots for years to come. The judicial .... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/25/trump-judges-supreme-court-justices-judiciary.
(5) June 30, 2023 SCOTUS blocks Biden's student loan plan and limits ... - CNN. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions-06-30-23/index.html.
