THE RADICAL, REACTIONARY MAJORITY ON THE SUPREME COURT

Note: If you find my posts too long or too dense to read on occasion, please just read the bolded portions. They present the key points I’m making and the most important information I’m sharing.

You’ve almost certainly heard about the Texas law prohibiting most pregnancy terminations (aka abortions). It’s blatantly unconstitutional and also radical in multiple ways. I’m not going to discuss the law itself in any detail, rather I want to focus on the behavior of the Supreme Court’s six radical, reactionary justices on this case and others.

Many people refer to the five Supreme Court justices (Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Thomas) who allowed the Texas law to go into effect and Chief Justice Roberts (who dissented in the Texas case for procedural reasons) as “conservative.” This is not accurate. Although they do fit with political conservatives in favoring free enterprise and private ownership, they do so in a way that ignores the whole post-Depression and post-WWII form of managed capitalism. Somewhat similarly, they only uphold traditional values and social norms if one turns back the clock at least 50 year and probably closer to 100 years. Finally, they are not conservative in terms of being averse to change or innovation, rather they are radical, judicial activists ignoring longstanding precedents and creating wholly new judicial theory and reasoning.

A number of court observers and journalists have taken to calling them “reactionary.” A reactionary holds political views that favor a return to a previous state of society, which they believe possessed positive characteristics that are absent from contemporary society. For example, these justices apparently want to return to the days when:

-       Abortion was banned and women’s roles and decisions were controlled by husbands, restrictive societal norms, and, in some cases, laws.

-       State governments were much more powerful and the federal government couldn’t enforce national laws protecting individuals’ rights, including the rights of people of color, women’s rights, immigrants’ rights, and others’ civil rights.

To call those six justices “radical” also seems appropriate as they are clearly upending fundamental principles, precedents, and processes of the Supreme Court and our system of jurisprudence. They have repeatedly shown a lack of respect for precedents that don’t fit their ideology.

Their radicalism isn’t limited to the Texas case or the substance of their decisions, but is also evident in the processes they have used to make numerous significant rulings. For example, rulings in three recent cases were made without hearing the merits of the cases:

-       The Texas pregnancy termination case: failed to stop implementation of a clearly unconstitutional law with a highly unusual enforcement mechanism – deputizing private citizens to sue – that is intended to evade federal judicial oversight.

-       The case on forcing asylum seekers to stay in Mexico: required the Biden administration to enter into an agreement with Mexico on asylum seekers, despite the fact that the Court has no jurisdiction or way to enforce Mexico’s participation. In addition, for the Court to direct the foreign policy of the U.S. is completely unprecedented and does violence to the separation of powers in the Constitution.

-       The termination of the eviction moratorium case: overturned a CDC-driven executive order that will impact the housing and health of millions of people in the face of a pandemic.

In these three cases, and in numerous others, the Supreme Court has issued rulings with significant effects based on procedural matters without the normal full briefing and arguments, which would provide them vital information needed to make an appropriately considered decision. This seems to be the Court’s new strategy for deciding major cases – ruling on procedural motions without hearing the merits of the cases. These rulings are typically unsigned, which is also unusual. Even Chief Justice Roberts, normally part of the radical, reactionary cabal, criticized the rush to judgement in the Texas case without consideration of the merits of the case, writing in his dissenting opinion, “We are at this point asked to resolve these novel questions … in the course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by the District Court or Court of Appeals. We are also asked to do so without ordinary merits briefing and without oral argument.” [1]

The lack of hearings also avoids a public airing of the issues, arguments, facts, and implications of a case and the Court’s decision. This and the fact that a number of the rulings have been issued outside of normal business hours seem to indicate a desire to minimize news coverage, public awareness, and public discussion of cases.

Both the substance of these rulings (and numerous others) and the Court’s failure to hold hearings make it appear that these decisions are based on ideology and politics, not legal precedents, the law, or the merits of the cases. As Robert Hubbell, a retired lawyer writes: “the Supreme Court has dropped all pretense of due process or respect for precedent … to implement the conservative social agenda … without regard to logic, precedent, or the Constitution.” [2]

Another indication that these decisions are partisan is that the Court had no problem with President Trump’s dramatic and sweeping executive orders but finds President Biden’s less dramatic orders unconstitutional. In the Mexico asylees case, the Court ordered Biden to reinstate an agreement with Mexico that had expired in 2020 before Biden was elected. However, the Court didn’t order Trump to reinstate it. [3] The six radical, reactionary justices appear to be acting aggressively to exert their power in support of a partisan, ideological agenda.

All six of these justices, unless I’m much mistaken, pledged at their confirmation hearings to abide by legal precedents, including previous Supreme Court decisions such as the Roe v. Wade decision, which made it a constitutional right to be able to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability at about 22 – 24 weeks of pregnancy. It now seems clear that they all lied, meaning they committed perjury given that they were testifying under oath.

In a future post, I’ll review the implications of the radical Texas pregnancy termination law and the Supreme Court’s failure to delay its implementation to allow time for judicial review. I’ll also discuss ways to respond to the Court’s radical, reactionary behavior.

[1]     Hubbell, R., 9/3/21, “Today’s Edition: A judicial coup d’état,” (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/todays-edition-a-judicial-coup-detat)

[2]     Hubbell, R., 9/2/21, “Today’s Edition: Susan Collins should resign in disgrace,” (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/todays-edition-susan-collins-should)

[3]     Hubbell, R., 8/27/21, “Today’s Edition: The backbone of America,” (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/todays-edition-the-backbone-of-america)