The Washington Post published an interview with Lawrence Tribe (Harvard law school, emeritus professor). In part it includes these comments:
Do you consider the Supreme Court to be in crisis now?
Yes. I have no doubt that the court is at a point that is far more dangerous and damaging to the country than at any other point, probably, since Dred Scott. And, in a way, because we even find Justice [Clarence] Thomas going back and citing Dred Scott favorably in his opinion on firearms, the court is dragging the country back into a terrible, terrible time. So I think that it’s never been in greater danger or more dangerous.
How did we get to that point?
Well, I think a combination of a long game on the part of the far right — ever since 1980, they’ve been very concerned with building toward the kind of court that Robert Bork really would have represented — along with lots of lucky breaks. When, for example, Thurgood Marshall left a little earlier than he might have, Clarence Thomas gets that seat. At the other end, when Ruth Ginsburg stays longer, perhaps, than she should have, Amy Coney Barrett gets that seat. When there is an opportunity to put Merrick Garland on the court on [Antonin] Scalia’s death, they sort of played a hard game, and we end up with [Neil] Gorsuch.
And when you look back, the consequence of Clarence Thomas is Bush v. Gore. And the consequence of Bush v. Gore is the appointment, by George W. Bush, of [John] Roberts and [Samuel] Alito. So that led to a court in which there are now five members who clearly have an agenda and whose agenda is very prominent and activist. And when they’ve got the votes, they don’t even care if they have the reasoning.
Do you think justices can be or ever were impartial? Is that an ideal that can be attained?
The court has always been quite political. And throughout much of our history, it’s been quite regressive. It is kind of a myth that the Supreme Court has been, you know, the shining city on the hill. It’s only during the very brief period from 1957 to 1969 or so, during the [Earl] Warren years, that the court really performed the function of ensuring one person, one vote, and moving toward racial and gender equality. That was a limited period. The court, for most of its history, has been very much in the thrall of economically and politically powerful groups. It retarded the progress after the Civil War by invalidating the civil rights acts and its invalidation of parts of the Voting Rights Act was fairly typical.
What do you say to somebody who says maybe you’re as partisan as anybody else, that this is your vision, but maybe the will of the people is to have these more conservative judges?
Except we know that that isn’t the will of the people. The overwhelming majority disagree with the court’s restrictions on firearm safety. The overwhelming majority wanted Roe v. Wade, or something like it, to stay in place. It is not the will of the people. And many of these justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote by a very large number, and they are confirmed by senators who collectively represent a distinct minority of the American electorate. So this is neither the will of the people nor the traditional, at least ideal, function of the court as a check of majoritarian tyranny. It’s not checking tyranny. It’s installing the tyranny of the minority.
They don’t even care if they have the reasoning. Very much in the thrall of economically and politically powerful groups. Installing a tyranny of the minority.
Jeez. None of that is reassuring.
So here we have yet another expert issuing yet another warning that we are on the verge of losing democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and reality. Those good things will be replaced by bad things like authoritarianism, White bigotry powering legalized mass discrimination, Christian Sharia, QAnon-level crackpottery, and minority rule by a liar-kleptocrat-tyrant.
This is not good.
Q: Is this good or not good?
No comments:
Post a Comment