This Supreme Court is paving its own way forward thanks to an activist judiciary


The US Supreme Court is out of control – hell bent on overriding established precedent and facilitating the creation of an authoritarian theocratic state.

Remember that the judges have now all knelt before the altar in their various confirmation hearings rigid decisionthe means “to stand by things that have been decided”. In principle, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, the court makes its decision in accordance with the decision of the previous court.

Space does not allow for a detailed discussion of the Court’s opinions, but the examples below give an idea of ​​where the Court is headed.


In its decision of 24 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, The court refused to follow the 50-year precedent and overturned it Roe v. calf. The court’s six conservative justices summarily nullified women’s fundamental right to safe abortion services in consultation with their healthcare providers without state interference, instead handing control of women’s reproductive rights to politicians, vigilante groups and right-wing religious legislators. The decision also sets the stage for challenges to LGBTQ+ community rights, contraceptive rights and the right to interracial marriage.

The day before Dobbsthe court rendered its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen and extended gun rights far beyond what the Second Amendment actually says and what the drafters obviously intended. That decision followed a wave of mass shootings — an average of about 1.7 a day — despite the fact that no American, anywhere, is safe from gun violence.

Then a week later, in West Virginia vs. EPA, the court ignored 100 years of case law and stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. Climate change is arguably the greatest existential threat to human survival, and the court’s sweeping decision casts confusion and doubt over federal agencies’ ability to regulate much of anything thereafter. Worse still, the court decided this case even though the contested rules had been abandoned, making the issue moot.

This court has progressively smuggled religion into the law, weakening one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy, the separation of church and state. On June 27, the conservative majority of the court gave way Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. There, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision upholding the local school district’s concerns that Christian-influenced speeches and prayers in a public school activity could be considered coercion on students or state endorsement of the religion in violation of the First Amendment . On June 21, at Carson vs Makin, the court advocated increased public funding for religious schools, despite a state requirement that such funding requires non-denominational schools. Before that, on May 2, in Shurtleff vs. Boston, The court ruled that Boston violated the right to free speech by refusing to display a flag with an image of the cross during a program that allowed private groups to use the flagpole while holding events in the same plaza hoist. And that decision was preceded by March 24th Ramirez vs. Collier In it, the court ruled that the state must allow a Christian pastor to lay hands on a prisoner during his execution.

On June 29, the court ruled Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta that states, along with the federal government, have responsibility for prosecuting crimes committed by non-Native Americans against Native Americans on tribal lands. In doing so, the court overturned a solid precedent to the contrary and opened the door to further encroachments on long-protected tribal sovereignty.

And the court’s next term is set for more of the same.

Among other things, the court will hear the case Moore vs. Harper. There it will be ready to determine that national legislatures have sole power to set electoral rules, even if those rules violate the state’s own constitution! If this becomes the law of the country, we can expect other cherished rights to eventually be put on the chopping block as well.

Conclusion: No rule of law, no constitutional right is safe unless it furthers the agenda of the conservative religious right.

rigid decision? It’s dead on arrival with this activist court.

This article was first published by the Daily Montanan, a sister publication of the Arizona Mirror and a member of the States Newsroom network of local news sites.


About Author

Comments are closed.