“I think we can do a lot, if a critical mass of organizations steps forward and develops a plan to go public and visible calling out the undemocratic and dangerous reality of what the Supreme Court majority is doing, particularly these shadowy, opaque, undemocratic ‘emergency’ decisions. Just like we have had and will be having, on October 18, successful mass actions of millions in the streets around the country calling for No Kings, worker justice, women’s rights, climate justice, racial justice and more, it is time for such a nationally coordinated action sometime this fall focused on this issue.”
This is what I wrote in a column about a month ago about the Supreme Court. Now that the mass mobilization for October 18 is over, as will be the fall elections as of November 5, I think, at that time, there’s a need for a much closer look at what an activist strategy could be to call out the conservative/MAGA majority on the Supreme Court.
I am fully aware that it is very rare for progressives to do something like this. There is understandable concern that doing so could be seen as “inappropriate,” or “too risky,” or “bad strategy.” After all, in the US system of government, judges have a lot of power. To some extent they are seen as, and often are, above the fray of politics, something seen as often corrupt and dishonest by a lot of people, on the right, left and center.
Of course, “above the fray of politics” sure doesn’t apply to this usually Trump-supporting Supreme Court.
Just in the last few months I have considered with others active in the climate movement whether we should publicly demonstrate calling for a key judicial body, not the Supreme Court, to do the right thing when it comes to a long-term campaign we are leading. We collectively decided it wasn’t the right thing to so.
But it’s different with this Supreme Court. First, there’s the fact that it was very much “politics” that is responsible for the 6-3 conservative majority. Two of the conservatives, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Conan Barrett, obtained their seats because of Republican Party political hypocrisy and raw power politics. Following Antonin Scalia’s death on February 13, 2016 and President Obama’s subsequent nomination of Merrick Garland to replace him, Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing and vote on that nomination, saying it was too close to the upcoming Presidential election eight months later! This led to the seat being vacant for 14 months until Trump, in 2017, nominated Neil Gorsuch.
Conan Barrett was nominated only 40 days, not eight months, before the 2020 election to replace the deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Republicans didn’t care then about it being “too close” to a Presidential election, and she was confirmed.
So what would be the objective of some kind of activist campaign, or even just a national day of action, focused on the Supreme Court?
One would be, for sure, to remind the country of how Gorsuch and Conan Barrett were nominated, the hypocrisy involved which has led to a court now “out of balance” when it comes to representing the differing views of US law as well as the reality of US public opinion.
Another would be to draw attention to proposals that have been made to address the fundamental unfairness of the present Supreme Court reality. The most broadly-supported proposal, the TRUST Act (Transparency and Responsibility in Upholding Standards in the Judiciary) was put forward this spring by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman Hank Johnson. It is co-sponsored by 26 Senators and 10 House members.
When might a national day, or national week, of action happen? It’d be good if it happened soon, but there are plenty of current fights that need a lot of support, and then there are the holidays, so sometime in the new year seems more realistic.
How about this? March 8 and March 15 are the birthdays of two deceased but still important Supreme Court justices: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. on the 8th, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on March 15. March 8 is also International Women’s Day.
Ginsburg was the second woman in US history to serve on the Supreme Court, so there’s a definite connection there.
Here’s what the Wikipedia entry for Holmes summarizes as his main contributions legally: “Holmes is one of the most widely cited and influential Supreme Court justices in American history, noted for his long tenure on the Court and for his pithy opinions – particularly those on civil liberties and American constitutional democracy – and deference to the decisions of elected legislatures.” Wow, very timely for sure!
Just like Trump, the Supreme Court is not above the law!