Picking sides

  Have we really reached the point where the purpose of the supreme court is to pick a side? That certainly seems to be the thinking of many on social media. With every ruling, every opinion issued by that court one side or the other rejoices, citing that as proof positive their ideology is the correct one. They won! Now that would seem normal enough in most situations but we are talking about the supreme court. A panel of legal experts whose task is to interpret what the constitution has to say about every and any question brought before it. They are supposed to be completely unbiased in their judgements and not on any side, yet the reality is they are labeled conservative and liberal. Each president, when the opportunity becomes available appointing a judge to their team. It's well known, an established fact, that it is an appointment for life and that judge can represent the team for many years to come, decades even. 

 The court establishes precedent. You can view that as the proverbial stone that laws are set in. Well the truth is even stone changes over time, the court has changed its' mind, reversed precedent an estimated 232 times since 1810. Yeah, looked that up and you can fact check it for yourself if you want. The last one was in June of last year. It reversed its' decision in the Chevron Deference Doctrine. Ever hear of that? I sure hadn't. It limits federal authority making it easier for business to challenge regulations in things like food safety, environmental and workplace safety. Was it a win for the conservatives?  Liberals certainly think so. The court overturned Roe v Wade, the one everyone has heard about. Another win for the conservatives? 

 However you want to view all of that the court has the final say, almost. Whatever opinion the court issues is generally accepted as final, but it isn't set in stone. The congress can pass amendments, a lengthy process requiring a two/third vote invalidating that opinion. It's all very complicated, as you can imagine, involving legal scholars and politicians promises. In my way of thinking, I see the court as establishing the moral authority for the nation. Those particular cases, ones where a ruling on morality is the real epicenter, are becoming more frequent. Back in the old days the "moral" code of the nation was understood by the majority, even though it had been plainly stated the government would not establish a state religion. 

 Still, the morality taught in the basic Christian doctrine and tradition was what was expected  from the populace. Only the manner in which the your "religion" was practiced was left uncodified. The supreme court wasn't involved in any of that. Interesting to note is that slavery was not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Was the 13th amendment the result of a moral ruling by the court? No, it was decision made by congress. In 1973 Roe v Wade went before the court. The court ruled that a woman had the right to privacy, that right included the right to have an abortion. They did not rule on the morality of that decision, just the legality. As we all know it was overturned in 2022. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, it was stated that the right to an abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition." In other words, not what is expected morally. The court doesn't rule on morality, just legality. They aren't on anyone's side. 

 That is what it is supposed to be anyway. Congress has the power to change the size of the court, limit its 'jurisdiction and determine the time and place of its' sessions. It can not directly overrule the court however, that takes an amendment to the constitution. Over the years the court has been increased in size, "packing the court" and reduced. Today we are all talking about establishing a set number of judges and establishing a term limit on their tenure. I believe that has become necessary as the "politicizing" of the court has become quite obvious to everyone. 

 The founding fathers never envisioned the state of the court as it now exists. Remember the founding fathers didn't feel like being a Congressman or Senator was a full time position, they didn't get paid, they simply served the people they represented. Perhaps those founding fathers were just a bit too optimistic. A bit too idealistic. They did believe in honor and fidelity. To serve the nation was an honor and a privilege. Today, well not so much I think, it's an occupation. A job to be done and nothing more. The objective being to extract as much wealth, power and prestige as possible from that position. The devil take the hindmost is that mindset. 

 I have to say it is a disappointment. I really did believe the court was a fair and unbiased forum. Now I'm seeing it is really about who you have on the team. That is expected from these judges by the powers that be. The congress and the executive branch both expecting the court to rule for their team, which "team" happens to control the majority in the house and/or senate. Who is the "coach" this term? That appears to be who is writing the rule book. Takes a lot to change the rules though, and I sincerely hope it remains that way. The question is, should we simply change the "rules committee" to determine what is best for business? We have established a Republic to run the "business" of government. Business is always controlled by the morality and ethics of those involved in that business. We can establish law to codify ethical business practices, to constrain the criminal actions of others, but we can not codify morality, that is solely the providence of the individual. That's what the first amendment is all about. That is what established that precedent. We the people established that.