Status Quo Johhny

Force may make hypocrites, but it can never make converts.

William Penn

We are all hypocrites.

I include myself in the mix. Among my favorite books is a tome titled, Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice, Kevin A. Ring, editor, (2004). I don't enjoy every reading merely because the late Antonin Scalia wrote pity, often profound opinions. As often as not, I disagreed with the outcome of the case. Sometimes - okay, maybe more than sometimes - I rejected the reasoning of the majority because I thought the result was stupid. I am no better (and possibly somewhat worse) than everyone else.

So the cacophony of voices objecting to the June decisions of the 2022 Supreme Court term are, well, normal in most respects. Aghast, shocked, angry beyond words. Except...

There is the (usual?) proclamation that the Supreme Court is (wait for it) illegitimate. "MAGA-captured," explains Senator Schumer. "The Supreme Court Has Dismantled Our Rights," writes Rebecca Solnit of The Guardian. In Aljazeera, Belen Fernandez decries the decisions in an essay entitled "SCOTUS is ramping up oppression in the 'land of the free.'" The Fernandez piece is especially illustrative of how many of the arguments are crafted:

In another recent education-related stunt, the Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, which he had magnanimously put forth after having assisted in creating the student debt crisis in the first place. The ruling affects well over 40 million people in the US.

Ms. Fernandez goes on to offer an argument (Plaintiff Missouri's math is faulty) that was not in evidence before the Court and may not be true. It also ignores the obvious, which brings us to the point of this post.

Chief Justice John "Johnny Rocket" Roberts is the epitome of status quo. A review of the rulings of this term gives (me) the impression that, rather than a collection of radical MAGA adherents, the six-members commonly associated with "The Right" are less interested in changing the legal landscape than they are to refer those decisions to the appropriate one of the political branches.

Take, for example, the North Carolina redistricting case (Moore v. Harper). Petitioner suggested that the Constitution vested total and unreviewable authority in state legislatures to draw district lines for federal elections. It can't be good for the petitioner when the Court begins an analysis of judicial review by citing Marbury v. Madison from...1803. That's right. It's hard to get much more status quo than to hold that the Supreme Court has recognized judicial review as a thing for two hundred years.

Texas sued Joey B and his boys over the enforcement of immigration law, alleging that the Biden Administration had de facto opened our country's flood gates to people without regard to...well, anything. Fair enough. In a departure from nothing, the Court reminded Texas (and everyone else) of what they all learned in middle school (junior high for us Boomers) - the Executive Branch of the federal government enforces federal law, and they are granted a great deal of deference in doing it. Something about limited resources with alternative uses. In an opinion that may have disappointed some, but surprised no one the Court didn't see it Texas's way.

We've already talked about the Harvard and UNC case.

Finally, the Colorado Web Designer case. Let's start with a caveat - I would not make the same business decision that the web designer did. Anyone involved in a same-sex marriage who'd like to come on here and write something is not just invited, they are encouraged. The Supremes said that I'm free to make that decision.

They also said I am free to withhold my talents (modest as they are) if my own good-faith conscience argues against it. One can play the "what if" game all day, but what was before the court was a question of compelling (by force of law) speech by the web designer with which she did not agree.

That is not a departure for the Supreme Court. Back when I was a kiddo, one of the kids in my elementary school class was excused every morning while we did the pledge of allegiance. Why? His parents had a good-faith religious objection. While many Americans believed that to be an affront to those who came home from war with their coffin draped with that flag, West Virginia v. Barnette was decided in 1943, when WWII was far from decided. Status quo.

The list goes on and on. I'll leave you with this thought. Is it just me, or is suggesting that one or more of our institutions are illegitimate grounds to get "de-platformed?" Isn't it a threat to "Our Democracy™" when we question the outcome of a show of hands?

We are all hypocrites.