The US Supreme Court has once again chosen politics over the rule of law. They rejected the DOJ’s request to block the Texas abortion law.
The US Supreme court has tentatively ruled that women are second class citizens in the eyes of the law. Last month, the Republican controlled court overturned Roe v Wade and allowed the notorious Texas anti-abortion law to stand. The court effectively threw out caselaw and chose to override it with politics in an effort to back the Republican cause of destroying women’s hard fought rights. The law, of course, has wide-ranging implications many consider Orwellian. This includes citizens actively policing the Internet for speech that might be considered an assistance to an abortion. Such a serious infringement of freedom of expression is, of course, not lost on digital civil rights organizations who have been vocal about the dangers of this law.
Of course, with Trumps hand-picked judges packing the Supreme Court, it once again demolishes the myth of so-called “checks and balances” in the US. Politics is increasingly overruling the rule of law. Now, we are learning that, once again, politics has ruled the day in the fight between law and politics. After the US Department of Justice (DOJ) lost the appeal in a Republican controlled lower court, the governmental organization appealed to the US Supreme Court to block the obviously unconstitutional law.
The prospects were not good from the start. The DOJ is, of course, pounding the law. Meanwhile, the judges are pounding the table and pushing a political agenda. When the judges are siding against you for political reasons, that’s not going to be a good sign from the get go. Still, what choice did the DOJ have?
Now, we are learning that the brief history of the political court house has repeated already. The US Supreme Court sided with politics and rejected the DOJ’s effort to halt the enforcement of the Texas anti-abortion law. Of course, not all justices are on board with this decision. From CNN:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized her colleagues for once again allowing the law to remain in effect, despite the quick schedule for oral arguments. The expedited schedule, she wrote in a dissent, offers “cold comfort” for women in Texas seeking abortion care “who are entitled to relief now.”
She said “the impact is catastrophic.”
“I cannot capture the totality of this harm in these pages,” Sotomayor said, adding that Texas, “empowered by this Court’s inaction,” has “thoroughly chilled the exercise of the right recognized in Roe.”
“Women seeking abortion care in Texas are entitled to relief from this Court now.,” she continued. “Because of the Court’s failure to act today, that relief, if it comes, will be too late for many. Once again, I dissent.”
The court acted with unusual speed, coming at a fraught time as the court’s new conservative majority seeks to move decisively to the right, while progressive justices are trying to limit the damage and Chief Justice John Roberts is focused at times at more incremental changes and the court’s legitimacy.
On September 1, the Supreme Court agreed to allow the law to go into effect, splitting bitterly in a 5-4 order released late at night on the court’s emergency docket. Liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sotomayor blasted the timing in a dissent They said the court’s “shadow-docket decisonmaking” had become more “unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.”
Now, the court did agree to hear arguments in November on both sides. Until then, the law can be enforced. So, that poses not just a very real threat to women’s rights, but also freedom of expression. Health experts in Texas have to ask themselves if their medical opinions online could land them with a minimum $10,000 fine. The law, after all, is clear in that an abortion doesn’t have to take place for people dispensing medical advice to be implicated online. The law itself deputizes average citizens with the potential reward of reaping the financial gains from those fines. So, not only is there political motivation, but financial motivation as well.
With the politically motivated court seemingly destined to rule against the DOJ once again, the question is, is there anything that can put a stop to all of this. Unfortunately, those options appear to be quite limited. After all, if the Federal government passes a law putting a stop to this law, nothing is stopping the US Supreme Court from simply striking laws that defends the constitution for political reasons. So, for the time being, it looks like the US is currently being held hostage by right wing forces with a political agenda to rapidly transform the country into a third world hell hole.
Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.
