Welcome to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jacksonyou will write a lot of scathing dissent.
Today (Monday) is the first day of the court’s new term. Last October, the judges began their work in a cloud of skepticism after the rental Texas bounty hunters ban on abortion be effective. Now, after the complete tipping over Roe v. calf In June, the Supreme Court is officially on unpopular facility entangled scandal that a majority of people think should be reformed/extended. None of this will stop them from unleashing more retrograde mayhem across the United States in the meantime.
In his opinion, in case of overturning roeJudge Samuel Alito noted snidely that “Women are not without electoral or political power.” This means that if you do not like this decision, you can register your objection at the ballot box. That’s extremely rich considering the court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and added two election-related cases that could weaken the landmark law.
This court will continue to make the most of its 6-3 Conservative supermajority, with the Conservatives – led by Alito and Clarence Thomas – not even needing the vote of Chief Justice John Roberts to drastically reverse legal precedent. (It only takes four votes to hear a case and five to decide one.) Knowing that they are essentially unaccountable to Congress or the public, they will use their unchecked power to destroy voting rights, to delete them separation from church and stateand the government’s ability to eviscerate combat climate changee.
Here are the biggest cases they’ve agreed to hear that term and what they’ve been able to steer clear of (there might be a few so far cancellation cases added):
right to vote (Merrill vs Milligan and Moore vs. Harper)
These cases are bad not only on an individual level, but they are could affect the 2024 presidential election. in the Merrill, the state of Alabama is trying to uphold a congressional map that lower courts said was racially manipulated and black residents’ votes were diluted. It’s an attack on what’s left of the Voting Rights Act – Section 2, which bans voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.
Moore is about a crazy legal theory that state legislatures have nearly unlimited powers over federal elections, including the power to ignore and disregard the pesky Voting Rights Act elect their own presidential electors. (It’s called the doctrine of independent state legislatures, and you’ll hear many voters talk about it.) The theory is rooted in Bush versus Gore in which the court awarded the election of 2000 to the loser. Not good!
anti-discrimination policy (Students for fair admissions and Brackets against Haaland)
Conservative activist Edwin Blum is leading lawsuits against it Affirmative Action Politics at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina through his Students for Fair Admissions group. Lower courts ruled that school policy “uses race in sufficiently limited ways to meet compelling interests in diversity.” Per CNN. But plaintiffs argue that Harvard discriminates against Asian students while UNC discriminates against Asian and white students. They say positive action is a form of discrimination.
in the brackensay the plaintiffs that the Indian Child Welfare Act– which aims to place Indigenous children with family members or tribesmen before anyone else to help them stay connected to their community– discriminates against white adoptive parents. They literally argue inverted racism. The court accepted the case before overruling it roe and it is seen in a different light after the court gave the green light more criminalization of pregnancy and to point out that women do not need access to abortions if there is an adoption. bracken is a Trojan horse for Undermining the sovereignty of the indigenous people broader; attack ICWA first, then other federal defenses.
LGBTQ rights (303 Creative vs. Elenis)
A Colorado website designer, who, more importantly, doesn’t even create wedding websites, filed a lawsuit, claiming she wants to do so and disagrees with a state anti-discrimination law that would do so getting them to accept gay clients. (Designer Lorie Smith sues using the vehemently anti-LGBTQ+ rights organization Alliance in Defense of Freedom.)
But the court is not hearing the case on religious grounds, but rather on the grounds of freedom of expression, specifically whether state laws “force an artist who speaks or is silent.” So we have another Trojan horse: the verdict could jeopardize all kinds of civil liberties. NPR described it like this:
As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran puts it, because the court qualified the argument, “if Smith is right that there is a right to free speech to selectively choose her clients based on the messages she wishes to support,” would the law also allow a white supremacist to deny service to people of color because that too would be “a message of approval.”
Mark Joseph Stern of Slate argued that a broad rule could, for example, allow companies to refuse customers who are Black or Muslim.
Water Pollution Limits (Sackett v EPA)
The case of the last semester, which is about the Environmental Protection Agency (West Virginia vs. EPA) it was about a challenge to the Clean Air Actand this time we get a case over the Water Conservation Act. How nice for people who need clear air and water to live! An Idaho couple challenged a 2006 Supreme Court decision that found regulators can Block pollution of wetlands that are far from rivers, lakes, and streams, as long as the wetlands “significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of these larger bodies of water.” This opinion was written by former Judge Anthony Kennedy when the court ruled 5-4, and the people who are against a livable planet are really doing their best now that it’s 6-3.
Again, these are the biggies on the agenda from today – they could decide to take on more cases, or be forced to meddle in disputes in lower courts, including abortion!
A likely case concerns conflicting rulings on abortion bans in Texas and Idaho whether hospitals have to offer the procedure or not if the health or life of a pregnant person is threatened. (The question is whether these bans violate a federal law — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act or Emmala— which mandates stabilizing supplies during emergencies.) One federal judge said they didn’t, while another said they did. This is exactly the kind of dispute that ends up in the Supreme Court, and I’m afraid to find out which judges Alito and Thomas reflects on the value of a pregnant person’s life compared to an embryo.
There is also a nuclear bomb petition asking the court to take on a case outside of Rhode Island whether fetuses are human under the 14th amendment.
Gird up all your loins, it’s going to be bad.
https://jezebel.com/this-supreme-court-term-will-be-very-very-bad-1849609212 This Supreme Court tenure is going to be very, very bad