“With Fear for Our Democracy…

…I dissent.”

Those are the final words of Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, in her scathing dissent regarding the recent ruling on presidential immunity.

We have had some significant, and in my humble opinion, unconscionable, rulings come down from the Supreme Court over the past several months. The current ultra-conservative court enjoys a 6-3 super majority that, from my view as I peek in through the window, appears to be a politicized rogue court, intent on dismantling democracy as we know it.

I realize I only have a few folks who will even read this. I also realize, of those that do, they are probably of the same persuasion as I – identifying as democrats and liberals. But I will continue to do this – write. It is what I do best, I believe, and if even one person reads something I’ve written, and questions something they had come to believe was true, then does their own research and comes to the realization that maybe what they were told wasn’t true, well, then, my work here is done. I’m willing to change my mind and admit my errors in judgment when provided factual evidence to the contrary. Are you?

Following are four cases I find incredibly disturbing. But, again, please, do your research. Not by watching far-right or far-left news. Not by simply trusting what someone is telling you. Seek out the facts. The truth. It’s out there and it may just surprise you.

By now we’re all familiar with the Dobbs v. Jackson decision – the decision that reversed 50 years of legal precedent regarding a woman’s right to abortion. This has already had a huge impact on women’s pre-natal health care, forcing women to go through with pregnancies which could be deadly or result in major medical complications that will affect their lives for years. Once SCOTUS relegated the abortion debate back to the states, many red states decided to jettison the right to abortion almost completely. Doesn’t matter if the woman might die. Doesn’t matter if the fetus will not be viable outside the womb. Doesn’t matter if the woman – or girl! – was raped. Recently, IVF also came under fire based on a ruling from a lower court stating a fertilized egg has personhood status and, if destroyed, could be criminalized – as in murder. Birth control pills, potentially next in line, could be banned because they inhibit a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. That, too, could be construed as abortion and therefore murder. It’s a slippery slope we’re on, for sure. Doctors, emergency care workers, insurers, and other healthcare-related entities are backing away from anything that might be considered an abortion for fear of losing their licenses, their jobs, their livelihoods. Women’s health be damned.

Then there’s Snyder v. United States. This case is pretty simple and straightforward. The court decided that gratuities – gifts given after an action was taken – were legal and not bribes. A bribe can only, apparently, be given before an action is taken. This ruling, in and of itself, was a “gift” by the SCOTUS to their own, most especially Justice Thomas, who has received over four-million dollars, to date, in “gifts.” This, effectively, makes corruption legal, providing payment is made after the deed is done, not before.

The Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling is another decision, like Dobbs, that overturned precedent, in this case 40 years of precedent, effectively hobbling the decision-making abilities of federal agencies. This means agencies like the FDA, the EPA, HHS, and the Department of Education. It allows courts to decide issues that could impact huge swathes of this county based on the court’s “expertise,” as opposed to relying on the expertise of those with advanced degrees in specific fields within agencies, or years of experience within their field in federal agencies. This has reared its ugly head twice already – in Texas, where a judge halted FDA approval of the drug mifepristone (which has been in use, safely, since 2000), claiming the FDA acted unlawfully in approving the pills for use and for allowing them to be prescribed and dispensed. (The SCOTUS, surprisingly, rejected the lower court’s decision in this case.) Then, a few days ago, a judge in Mississippi ruled that HHS overstepped its bounds based on the recent Loper Bright ruling and, at least until opposing legal challenges are mounted, blocked a new rule which was set to add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes within the  healthcare arena. In other words, this new lower federal court ruling makes discrimination by healthcare practitioners and entities based on gender identity and sexual orientation permissible under the law.

And finally, the United States v. Trump immunity case. This decision provides absolute presidential immunity for acts deemed “official” in nature and within a president’s “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” While this applies to all former, current, and future presidents, it is only advantageous to the corrupt among them. Interestingly, in the 235 years since George Washington was inaugurated as our first president, we haven’t needed an immunity clause to protect the president as he did his job. Now we do. I think it’s painfully obvious why this was changed by the Court at this juncture, some 250 years into our democratic experiment.

Here’s the thing, and this is a fact: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This court has whittled away at agencies being able to do their jobs and has granted extraordinary power to the president. Democracies are not ruled by Kings. Autocracies are. And, like Justice Sotomayor, I fear we are headed in that direction.

But hey, don’t trust me – do your own research. Because come November, you have a decision to make. It’s no longer a red vs. blue decision. It’s not conservative vs. liberal decision. It’s a democracy vs. dictatorship decision. It’s that simple. You must decide the world in which you, your children, and your grandchildren will live. Will you choose one with freedoms intact and the rule of law applying to all equally, regardless of position, and a government which does what is best for the country at large? Or will you choose a country which curtails freedoms from those not in the favored group (currently white, male, straight, Christian Nationals) and a government filled with oligarchs (think Russia, for instance) intent on using whatever means necessary to line their own pockets – legally, according to SCOTUS – with little regard for the American populace?

It is your choice. Choose wisely.

~jwb~