The majority supreme court justices are a conservative lot. That’s no secret. Notwithstanding, too many people believe the hype about it being a “supreme” court. It is no more supreme than any other court except for the fact that it is the court of last resort.
Historically, the high court has sided with the powers that be in terms of business, governance and organized religion (the wholly trinity). For example if you have the idea that you’re going to take on the IRS, ICE of any other one-percent driven agency at the supreme court level, you might just as well save your money.
Of course there have been rare occasions when the court has ruled in favor of what is best for the well-being of the nation, but not often enough. On those occasions it was the influence of those justices identified as “liberals.”
It could hardly be otherwise. From day one candidates for the life-time appointment have been largely and until recently exclusively from the one-percent ruling class. This is not unlike the case for so many of the other appointment-based offices.
Thus it really should come as no surprise that these the majority justices on the court today are conservative and ironically enough, state’s rightists. (Unless it has to do with presidential elections) Why do I characterize them so? You need only glance at headlines or listen to sound bites to disabuse yourself.
The question I have to ask myself is, “is it possible to admire someone even when we discover that that someone held or holds views diametrically opposed to our own on some matters?”
I ask that because when I was a young man I truly admired one of the founders of this republic. Even knowing he was an unrepentant slave-holder and state’s rightist, there was enough good in his philosophies that I could still admire his life accomplishments.
At that phase of my life I also developed an appreciation and admiration for another great leader. He did his best to bridge the divide between the one-percent and the rest of us. He created safety nets for the poor and put in place many work programs that gave men and women both income security and a sense of dignity while making this nation a better place. But alas, he, too, had some great flaws and did things that were egregious at best by either act or omission and inconsistent with my philosophies and egalitarian nature.
The former was state’s rightist and the latter a federalist.
The reason I mention this is because the immigration case the supreme court heard yesterday is going to be determined by whether state’s rightists or federalists on the court prevail.
The majority justices are partisan demagogues who have expressed state’s rightist philosophies in the past so the outcome is almost a given. The nation deserves much more.
So is it possible to admire someone with whom you philosophically disagree? When the facts are put in historical perspective, yes. But that’s the problem. The majority conservative justices seem to live in another historical time.
If we the people are lucky perhaps this one time they will be more. But, I am not holding my breath.
From Texas Red: a cratered landscape of prisons, deplorable apartheid public education, lack ofhealthcare and politicians and majority population intent on keeping it that way…