The Supreme Court puts freedom of religion above freedom from dying

So this is what a conservative majority of the Supreme Court looks like, eh? With her recent confirmation, we have a 6-3 conservative majority with the addition of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In one of Justice Barrett’s early decisions, she quickly showed the conservative majority’s power and proved Chief Justice John Roberts the newest “moderate” on the court. In a recent  5-4 decision, the Supreme Court nixed New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision to temporarily ban worship at houses of worship in the state’s hot covid-19 zones.

Places packed with people of course are natural zones for spreading this coronavirus. Infections there get passed on, not just to congregants in these houses of worship, but to people outside them, some of whom will also pass it on. It all spreads the disease but, hey, your right to worship in the First Amendment is apparently is more important than your desire to not catch this often-deadly disease. Maybe this is because there is no amendment is in the Constitution saying you have the right to a functioning public health system that can take obvious measures in the name of public health.

“Even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten,” the opinion said. “The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

Thanks for clarifying that, justices. It’s not like Governor Cuomo issued an edict closing houses of worship permanently. He did it until the disease was under control in these hot zones. This allowed worshippers, but also those who don’t worship there or practice religion at all, to avoid infection and potential death. Until now, this was a perfectly reasonable standard. Now, the Supreme Court is okay with you being dead of covid-19 if it temporarily infringes on someone else’s religious liberty.

I’d like to say this is something new, but the conservative majority has been around since the George W. Bush era. It now just has another member and an expanded majority. Sometimes these decisions expanding liberty are good, such as in the case of allowing universal gay marriage, even though marriage is not a right actually spelled out in our federal constitution. But at other times, it’s been bad. The Supremes decided you have the right to own a gun no matter what, and since that time lots of people have died who would not have had they upheld common sense gun control laws where it was obviously needed.

The premise of liberty seems to be that risk is inherent in the exercise of liberty. It’s just that until fairly recently, this risk was born on those wanting to exercise their liberty instead of everyone else. While about a third of gun-related murders are suicide, the rest are homicides, most likely inflicted against family members, neighbors or other intimates. This decision is just more of the same, except had Justice Ginsberg not died and had not Justice Barrett so quickly replaced her, it would likely have been 5-4 the other way. In other words, sanity would have likely prevailed.

The Supreme Court’s decision here essentially is a death warrant for at least thousands of Americans, and will sicken tens or hundreds of thousands more. Most likely, if you could poll these people (it’s hard to poll dead people) they would disagree with this decision, but apparently, they don’t matter. Preventable death is an unfortunate consequence of having so much liberty.

This is what happens when you put ideologically strict constructionists in our courts. Real life is not allowed to have any impact on their decisions. Instead, these decisions are based not on what our founding fathers really thought about these liberties, but on what they think they might have thought about them, had these founding fathers never interacted in the real world at all.

It’s likely that this court will find new and similar ways to expand liberty, like by denying women the liberty to have an abortion because the liberty to fetal life is somewhere in the U.S. constitution, in their minds. Fetuses without brains even capable of cogitating will be endowed with future freedoms thanks to our enlightened Supreme Court, I’m betting. I’m betting this court will find ways to reduce social benefits because laws like social security weren’t explicitly in the Constitution either. And we’ll all feel freer if we stand on our own two feet, and pay-as-you-go for life, they will figure. Freedom through bad circumstance and a rigged economic system make living better!

I just hope we survive all this liberty. Chances are many of us won’t. And we’ll enjoy a new unarticulated freedom inherent in the Constitution: the right to a premature and miserable death so that others can exercise their freedoms stupidly and/or with malicious intent.

What progress!

Republicans are going for a dictatorship

Things have been keeping me up at night lately. The latest thing to wake me up in a cold sweat at 4 AM was, of all things, judicial nominations. In case you haven’t noticed, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell has been working at a breakneck pace to put Trump’s judges on the federal bench. It’s pretty much all the Senate does these days.

Presidents of course are supposed to nominate people to the federal bench. It’s generally a good idea for the Senate not to tarry on these nominations as there are plenty of cases that need to be tried and in recent years federal case backlogs have been growing because of many judicial retirements. And that’s because until Trump came along, the Senate wasn’t confirming too many judgeships. Those they were confirming tended to bend toward the right side of the political spectrum.

To give you an idea of how bad it got, at the start of 2015, the last two years of Obama’s second term, there were 45 judicial vacancies. As more judges retired, Obama dutifully nominated 103 candidates, of which the Senate deigned to confirm just 22. During his last two years in office, Obama nominated 76 people. So there were a total of 98 candidates nominated by Obama, only 22 of who were confirmed. 54 nominations were returned. Effectively, less than a quarter of the nominees Obama forwarded to the Senate were confirmed in his last two years.

Obviously, Mitch McConnell was deliberately blocking these nominations, as he blocked Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. He was waiting for a Republican to win in 2016. Since then unsurprisingly things have picked up. After a slow 2017 where only 18 judges were confirmed (it took a while for Trump to nominate new people), 66 were confirmed in 2018 and through 7 more so far through March 2019. 91 judges that have been confirmed since Trump took office. That’s roughly four times the number that Obama got through in his last two years.

Unsurprisingly, there are no left-of-center justices being nominated or confirmed. Breaking with precedent like Mitch McConnell likes to do, he moved forward nominations that were disapproved by home state senators. Thus in the liberal 2nd Circuit which covers New York and New England, with the elevation of Judge Michael Park to the court, brought the number of Republican judges in the circuit to six. It is expected by the summer Republican judges will control the circuit court, meaning judges who disproportionately don’t have a mindset of the people they serve will be telling them what to do.

This stacking of the courts is having real world effects. Trump has plenty of reason to stack the courts because it is his “get out of jail free” card. He needs these judges to rule in his favor so he suffers no consequences for his many actions. For Republicans, it’s not so much saving Trump they care about as getting conservative judicial decisions. We got a preview of it this week when the U.S. Supreme Court broke with more than forty years of precedent in its Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt decision, which overturned its Nevada v. Hall decision. Basically, the decision invalidates the idea that states have sovereign immunity for suits filed in other states. In our federal system, states are supposed to be sovereign, but not anymore. Justice Breyer basically asserted that this precedent will be used to overturn Roe v. Wade, which rests on a similar assumption.

Toward that end various red states have been chomping at the bits to outlaw abortion. They are competing against each other to come up with the most restrictive anti-abortion law, on the hopes that the Supreme Court will uphold it. Georgia’s recently signed fetal heartbeat law, which outlaws abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected (at about the sixth week of pregnancy, when lots of women don’t even know they are pregnant), seemed to be at the top of the heap. But then Alabama outlawed virtually all abortions, including in the case of rape or incest. Its only exception: if the mother’s life is in danger. Georgia’s law would make it a crime for a woman to get an abortion out of state, and with the Hyatt decision it looks like the Supreme Court won’t object. Women who get abortions out of states could effectively become fugitives.

Our nation appears to be on the cusp of becoming a variant of The Handmaid’s Tale. Soon, if some states have their way, an 11-year-old girl raped by her own father will be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and probably care for the child for life too. And just as the Fugitive Slave Act at one time allowed federal marshals to go into free states to return escaped slaves to their masters, it’s more than possible that women who get pregnant in Georgia but get abortions outside of Georgia may be hauled by federal marshals back to Georgia to spend thirty years in prison for their “crime” which was inflicted on them by someone else without their consent. Left off the hook, of course, are the men who got them pregnant in the first place. Women are becoming chattel again, thanks to men like Mitch McConnell.

That’s why I woke up in a cold sweat at 4 AM. By stacking the courts with judges who don’t care about the law or precedent, they are poised to turn our nation into the dictatorship that Donald Trump so desperately wants. Republicans of course are all for all of this. They don’t care about democracy. They don’t even believe in a republic. They simply want to control power now and forever through any means, and they are working the legal channels to legally appoint judges to ensure future judges will always act illegally. Moreover, there’s no clear way outside of revolution for changing this.

We should all be breaking out in cold sweats like me every night.