Thank You Supreme Court Justices

I have posted a number of "thank you" blogs in the past few years.  They might generally fall under the heading of sarcastic thank yous, although I am serious in my praise of the subjects in that I believe that it is often human nature to only address a problem when forced into a corner, and so sometimes we must acknowledge those people or circumstances that inspire "good" people to get off the sidelines and act.

This theory also connects with the often stated belief that the truly horrific things that happen in life, whether to groups or individuals, occur due to the inaction of "good" people, as much as the horrible actions of those bad actors among us.

My last thank you was to Vladimir Putin.  In it I detailed a few silver linings which I hoped might emerge as a result of Putin's war on Ukraine.  From realizing that all wars, even those engaged in by America, result in refugees, dead citizens in the streets and families broken up by violence, to coming to terms with our addiction to fossil fuels, in general, and oil in particular, to applying our alleged belief in Christian values by condemning actions which illustrate a might makes right philosophy, it would be wonderful if in 20 years we all look back on Putin's war and conclude that humanity took a few steps forward as a result of rejecting sociopaths, and their methods.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/03/thank-you-president-putin.html

Which brings us to the recent decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade.  

I have already stated in a few previous posts, that, in my opinion, the logic behind the majority opinion which reflects an originalist viewpoint of the Constitution, is misguided.  I not only find it hard to believe that the founders would have expected their words to be set in stone, with disdain towards future generations adapting their lofty concepts to social, political, technological, medical, etc, advancements, but find it unfathomable that they thought that as our democracy evolved, their efforts to expand the rights of citizens would be used to restrict freedom for those that, in the late 18th century, weren't truly recognized as included in the ideal reflected in the phase "all men are created equal".  While we might argue that they may have not considered that women, Blacks, and the LGBTQ community would someday be legally recognized as being equal to the white, elite, business and land owners of their time, I find it hard to accept that they would have been OK with restricting the rights of those groups simply because it took amendments to the Constitution to grant them some measure of equal, legal footing.  Or because it wasn't obvious that all men means all humanity, regardless of race, gender, etc.

Of course, we could debate whether they thought such unenumerated rights should be controlled at the federal or state level, although, again, I would like to believe that they so worshiped freedom, that they might be aghast at the necessity for federal laws to override state laws which restricted individuals from marrying someone of the same gender or different race, accessing contraception, and yes, even choosing an abortion which, for me, reflects as intrusive a law preventing a woman's freedom as any of the others.

Which brings us to why I am thanking the justices of the Supreme Court.

It should never have been necessary for the original Roe V Wade decision to allow a woman to control her reproductive health, just as it shouldn't have required SCOTUS to step in when some states had enacted laws which restricted the freedoms of Americans due to their race, sexual orientation, etc.  I am glad they did, but once time had passed and the majority of people realized that the sky would not fall in if people married outside their race or gender, these beliefs should have been codified in law, by Congress.  If it occasionally takes the highest ruling body in the nation to remind us that we are all not free unless everyone is free, fine, but once we come to acknowledge how our prejudices are one of the biggest obstacle to realizing true freedom for all, Congress needs to do its job and pass federal legislation that enumerates the rights that some claim don't exist, especially considering the outdated biases that still occupy the minds of certain state legislators.

Of course, each state could put the matter on the ballot and let the people decide as Kansas just did when it allowed the citizens to decide if there should be a (state) constitutional right to abortion.  I would certainly favor all 50 states doing so, as well as asking its citizens to decide if gay marriage should be legal.  Curiously though, I doubt such a wave of referendums will occur.  

For one, I think that the voters in very few states would actually vote to ban abortion, or contraception, or gay marriage.  Which is why you don't see state legislatures which lean towards banning some or all of these things, proposing such a referendum as they know they would lose most of the time.  Also, as has been seen in a few examples where a referendum was held, there are some state legislatures, and governors for that matter, who, at the end of the day, don't really care what the voters think.  It is easy to find examples of this arrogance by looking at a few marijuana referendums that passed but are actively being log jammed by leaders who don't agree with their constituents, and use their power to derail the real life enactment of those  referendums.

Not to mention, current and wanna be public servants who have not been shy about claiming that if elected, they will reserve the right to decertify the decisions of a particular state when they see fit.  The obvious example is all the cult members who think that if they are elected this November, they can roll back the election of Joe Biden in 2020, and name Trump the winner of their particular state.  Or do the same should the former president lose in 2024.

Funny how the decision at the polls which puts some people in power can be questioned about someone else's election, but no one ever claims fraud when they win.  I guess I will never understand how thinking Americans buy into the concept that our elections are rigged just because of one sore loser.  Nor do I get how these same Americans can believe that most of this fraud happens in someone else's state, not their own.  I mean, if our elections are rigged, shouldn't everyone renounce their victory and start over?  Aren't all the results suspect?  

But I digress.

So again, hats off to the justices of the Supreme Court.  They have recognized that, while they might be arbiters of the law, they should limit their creation of policy to a minimum, and have reminded all of us that we need to hold our public servants accountable to conceive of and pass laws that promote freedom, even for those who look, love and worship differently from us, and that we, the American electorate, need to demand such action.  We, and those serving us in our state capitals and in Washington, must make the hard decisions so that rights we think are sacrosanct can't be pulled out from under us due to our lack of attention.  And so the founders can be proud that we improved on their work in 1776, not just let it languish.