As is often the case, the day after I wrote a blog piece, someone else contributed something to a media outlet that complemented what I’d written. Such was the case with yesterday’s “Bodily Control”. An opinion piece came out in The New York Times comparing banning abortion with the enactment of Prohibition in the 1920’s. It was written by a history professor from Georgetown University. His conclusion was slightly different from mine, in that he focused on the part I wrote about how unenforceable the newly-enacted state laws will be. He didn’t talk about the fact that the Supreme Court as an institution took a major hit to its credibility. John Marshall is rolling in his grave at the moment. If you find that confusing, just google John Marshall or Marbury v Madison. You’ll figure out what I mean when you read what’s written.
The last time a major Supreme Court decision was ignored was in 1832 by President Andrew Jackson. John Marshall was still there, and the case involved Native American sovereignty in Georgia. As there was no social media in 1832, the impact was reserved exclusively for Native Americans. Relatively speaking, that was a small part of the population, in this case about forty six thousand versus nearly thirteen million whites. This time, the Supremes have upset fifty one percent of the entire population of the country – and there is social media that isn’t going to let this go. So we have another unenforceable decision, upsetting half the entire population of the country. And I’d argue the Supremes aren’t done with us yet.
When they overturn cases that uphold the right to contraception, gay marriage, affirmative action, control over gerrymandering and … uh oh .. interracial marriage? Might that last one hit close to home for one of them? Let’s talk about that.
The case of Loving v. Virginia was decided in 1967, overturning state law that declared intermarriage to be illegal. The basis of that decision was a violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. You remember the 14th – the one enacted after the Civil War to grant citizenship to former slaves? Well, kiddies, one could argue that equal protection for women and their bodies might be found in the 14th amendment. Since the Supremes didn’t find that protection there, wouldn’t it follow that this case was wrongly decided as well? After all, white and black couples getting married have nothing to do with slaves being granted citizenship, right? Uh oh. Clarence Thomas, darling – you could be hoisted on your own petard. Wouldn’t that just be too ironic?
I think we’re going to be in for some very interesting times in the next few years. the chaos that results from roiling established law will further the national estrangement. My prediction has always been – and will continue to be – the geographic breaking up of these United States. We shall be united no longer. We will be enclaves, likely in four to six different parts with mass migration of like-minded people. Social and culture issues have undone many a civilization in the past. The “People’s Court” was set up in 1934 by Hitler after he was dissatisfied with the acquittal of defendants charged with the Reichstag fire. There was no presumption of innocence in front of that group of judges. Might the reverse happen here? If the Supremes keep overturning settled law, the result could be adding more judges to the bench – or creating a whole new court like Hitler did. Or each region having its own “People’s Court”. But this time, it would be designed to act as a buffer between the rogue Supremes and the region. Now wouldn’t that be a real kick in the head? God help us.
