With the U.S. Supreme Court deciding a number of cases on its emergency docket in favor of the Trump administration, it might appear we are seeing a shift in the Court. In reality, the Court’s decisions have generally reflected the prevailing biases of the time, and the Court has “largely rul[ed] to defend the interests of businesses and the wealthy elite rather than the general public,” states Gabriella Sanchez of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Except for a short period in the mid-1900s, advancing social justice and protecting individual rights were not the hallmark of the Court.
Just like any of us, Supreme Court justices are subject to their own inclinations. As George Lakoff explains in “Don’t Think of an Elephant,” we all view life through a series of frames, that is, “mental structures that shape the way we see the world.” Presidents who get to nominate justices focus on how their nominees see the world.
With slavery being lawful when the Constitution was drafted, we should not be surprised the Court held in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856) that African slaves and their descendants were not U.S. citizens and, thus, not entitled pursue a claim in court.
In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court struck down as unconstitutional a federal law that mandated equal access to transportation, hotels and theaters. Not surprisingly, 12 years later the Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that “equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races” was constitutional.
When a “feeble-minded” 18 year-old woman—she was the daughter of a “feeble-minded” woman and the mother of “illegitimate feeble-minded child”—was threatened with sterilization under Virginia law, the Court did not protect her. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote in Buck v. Bell (1927), “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
The Court saw government as having no right to regulate business, and so in Lochner v. New York (1905) it struck down as unconstitutional a New York law that precluded bakers from working more than 60 hours a week, on grounds the law interfered with freedom of contract. As the court saw it, bakers were on equal footing with management when negotiating employment terms.
A federal law that prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor was found to be unconstitutional in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) on grounds that limitations on the employment of children belonged only to the states, not Congress. Never mind that the law concerned, in part, children under the age of 14.
But from 1953 to 1969, the Court’s philosophy under Chief Justice Earl Warren changed, and the Court began to protect civil rights.
In One, Inc., v. Olesen (1958), the Court upheld free speech in case where a postmaster refused to deliver gay magazines on grounds they were obscene. The Court found in Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) that a voting map for Tuskegee, Ala., that was created to disenfranchise Blacks violated the Constitution.
The rights of criminal defendants were broadened in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)—states must provide attorneys to the indigent—and in Miranda v. Arizona (1963)—statements made by someone in police custody are admissible at trial only if the person was advised of his rights to remain silent and speak with counsel.
In Levy v. Louisiana (1968), the court struck down as “invidious discrimination” a Louisiana statute that permitted only a “legitimate child” to pursue a claim on a deceased parent’s behalf. A Virginia law that prohibited interracial marriage was struck down as unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
In the last 20 years, the Court has issued a number of decisions that are troubling and appear to be based more on ideology than a search for justice. Cases concerning voting rights, women’s rights, campaign finance and presidential immunity come to mind. And what is striking is the Court’s apparent disregard for the ramifications of those decisions.
____________________________________
Jack D’Aurora writes for Considerthisbyjd.com
____________________________________________________
Too often, people praise the courts when decisions align with their personal beliefs and condemn them when they do not. That is not really a debate about law or justice. It is often disappointment that the court did not deliver the outcome they wanted.
The Supreme Court of the United States was never designed to guarantee agreement or emotional satisfaction. Its role is to interpret the Constitution and apply the law through legal reasoning, precedent, and judicial philosophy.
Because there is no universally accepted definition of “justice,” every controversial ruling will leave some believing justice was served and others believing it was denied. That tension is not a flaw unique to the Court. It is the reality of a constitutional republic built on competing views of rights, liberty, equality, and government power.
Disagreeing with a ruling is fair. Reducing every unfavorable decision to corruption or failure of the system is often more about politics and personal ideology than the actual rule of law.
It is very much like a game of playing poker. The winners are telling jokes and the losers are yelling, “Shut up and deal!”