themselves that Roe (and other cases) would not be overturned. Little did these democratic leaders, who suspected the republican
nominees were not totally sincere about letting Roe v Wade stand on the principle of stare
decisis, ever think that the real endgame was
getting enough conservative votes on the court to overturn the principle of stare decisis itself. Little did they understand that, achieving that goal, the republican members of the court would be free to realize personal, political, and ideological interests.
A person need look no further than the confirmation of Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh as the means that achieved this goal. With these three members joining Alito and Thomas, there was a clear majority to move against the principle of stare decisis. First among the moves was the overturning of Roe v Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Despite raising their hands to uphold the Constitution and abide by the principle of stare decisis, the conservative members of the court finally achieve the longtime political goal of eliminating the right of a woman to have control over her own body – and in doing so, effectively ensured that half the country’s population no longer possessed such liberty. Second among the moves was the
Loper Bright v Raimondo decision, which overturned the long standing and important Chevron decision that granted agencies a limited level of deference to engage in a reasonable interpretation of something which Congress’ law left unsaid. The effect was to realize a long term goal of conservative political action groups: to overturn a consciously constructed, decades old law that was purposely designed to be vague in order to respond flexibly as research and science around the environment grew – thereby, effectively eliminating new rules and regulations concerning the environment both through what will now be an endless appeal of
all past and future environmental rules and regulations brought before a sympathetic court. Finally, most dangerously among the moves was the court granting presidential immunity to former president Trump (and all subsequent presidents, should there be any) when conducting “official” acts, one which said even motive could not be considered when determining whether such an act was legitimate.
It is the latter of which that causes the greatest concern. Moving in lockstep to thank the man who put them onto the Court and allowed members of the court to become a legislative body, the court effectively remade the republic in Trump’s image by not only eviscerating rights and privileges granted by the Constitution to
individual citizens but by effectively eliminating
the separation of powers doctrine which granted and legitimized the Court’s own standing. More than the constitutional monarch of England with whom America fought against for independence and who is held accountable by Parliament to the point the King reads a statement opening Parliament that outlines an agenda which itself is written by Parliament, the Court elevated Trump’s position within the executive branch to dictatorial dimension:
Trump could, if engaging the military to assassinate a political opponent, claim immunity by arguing it was an “official” act (though he could not do so, if he were himself
So much for the Constitution. The Supreme Court has now become a legislative body, the effect of which is Americans now reside in a state not of law but of men.
54