I was not surprised with the decisions made by the United States Supreme Court last week (the week of June 16 – 22 2024); indeed, I expected them based upon the known ideological influences affecting most of its current members. They have proven themselves to hold no consistent hermeneutic by which they decide their cases, which is why precedent means nothing to them; rather, they have a conclusion which they want to reach, and will justify it any way they can, even if it goes against principles they previously said they follow. This is why debating their arguments, showing the errors of them, while important ( to explain where they went wrong), is not enough. Many of the justices show they do not care for any theoretical consistency. While, it is true, they often promote what is called “originalism,” we need to realize they do so only because they see it as a tool for their own power and authority, and not because originalism makes sense or will be able to answer questions which come before them today. It is a rhetorical tool at best, one which is used to undermine the progress that happened in the 20th century because they do not like the results of that progress. However, if originalism gets in the way of their own desires, they will either ignore it or try some sort of rhetorical flourish to try to suggest they somehow are following what originalism would allow; this is exactly what is being done with the so-called “major questions” doctrine which many conservative members of the Supreme Court now promote – it is a very modern approach, one which has considerable logical flaws, and yet it is one which can be used to deny precedent and undermine the authority of the executive branch to properly enforce the law when the executive branch follows principles the same members of the Supreme Court despise. The “major questions” doctrine is a recent innovation, and does not properly connect with originalism, though many, who like its use and want to associate themselves with originalism, are trying to find a way to justify the connection, all to hide from themselves the reality is that they have no consistent legal theory they follow.
What is clear is that many in the Supreme Court make decisions long before they hear a case, decisions which they then try to find a way to justify. They dislike the social safety net, and the authority administrators need to protect and defend it, and so they know they have to find a way to justify weakening that power (which is what the “majors questions” doctrine does). What we really have is a will to power, a will to make what they want happen to happen. Once we understand that, we will finally know what we are dealing with and why arguing against their decisions and the justifications they use will not fix the problem, as we get stuck in a distraction, that is, an argument which the members of the Supreme Court do not care about themselves.
So, what did we see happen? First, they virtually approved the use of bribery (by saying what is being given are not bribes, merely gifts), even as members of the Supreme Court have been shown to be receiving such gifts themselves (explaining why they would vote in favor for it). But those who have given such “gifts” desire those who receive them to rule in certain ways, and that is exactly what saw happened next with the destruction of the Chevron deference, a long-established precedent which gave administrative bodies the common sense authority to interpret the laws they are executing in order to do their job. Now, as the executive branch relies on such administrators to enforce laws, it will find it impossible to truly do so, as no law is self-interpreting: every law requires the one executing it to interpret it to know how to execute it. Since administrative bodies are now told they cannot interpret the laws they are meant to execute, how can they act upon any law? It is one thing to say administrative agencies can err in their interpretations, and when that happens, the court can overturn their decision, but it is another thing to say they are not allowed to make any interpretation themselves, especially when there are questions as to how the law should be applied. To have to wait for Congress to give an answer when questions arise, and refine the laws to answer those questions, or to wait for the courts to give an interpretation when Congress does not do so, will leave the country is chaos, and with that chaos, those who are meant to be stopped from harming society will have free reign to do as they wish.
The Supreme Court has told us that the common good be damned because they did not like the power the executive branch needed to administer the laws. Now, federal agencies will find it difficult at best, impossible at worst, to help protect society from those who would harm the common good – indeed, that seems to be the point of the decision. Members of the Supreme Court (and those giving them gifts) hated the fact there were all kinds of regulations to follow, and instead of working to change the regulations (if needed) they wanted to make sure the executive branch had little to no power to enforce them.
The future of humanity, not just the United States, has now been put in jeopardy because members of the Supreme Court wanted to dismantle the authority of agencies like the EPA, as the federal government has been told it has little power left to safeguard the environment. Woe to those who do evil and call it good, indeed! I fear, are going to further create our own hell on earth, just as Scripture indicated the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did with their selfishness and disdain for the common good in their time! Indeed, the other major decision of the Supreme Court this week exemplifies the spirit of Sodom and Gomorrah as it said that it is not cruel and unusual punishment for cities to punish homeless people who have no place to live and rest but public lands, saying that cities can make it illegal for homeless people to rest on such spaces without giving them a place where they can safely go. It is not difficult to see where this is heading: homeless people, who have no money, will be fined, and when they are not able to pay their fines, will be arrested and jailed, and likely, in jail, will be forced to work off their debt (at such a low wage that they will be virtual slaves). The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was their lack of hospitality, that is, their lack of charity to those in need, and now the Supreme Court has said the United States can become one giant Sodom and Gomorrah . If we were not concerned about the way we were making hell on earth due to our environmental policies, we should be concerned about the way we are making hell on earth due to the way we turn against social justice and the basic expectations society has to take care of everyone.
If this were not bad enough, we were also shown the way the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), influenced by many of the same people who were giving gifts to Supreme Court justices, has decided to severely restrict its ministries dealing with peace and social justice as well as the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). When the USCCB is needed to be a voice for the poor and needy, for those who are being disenfranchised by the Supreme Court, it is found to be destroying its ability to speak and act on such matters. What is worse, many of those who are involved with such disenfranchisement are themselves Catholics, and should be warned about the evil they are doing, and yet the USCCB is not doing so, indeed, it is undermining its ability to do so, showing us how it is neglecting its duty, not only to the poor, but to the rich and powerful.
I cannot state with certainty what will happen in the future, but, I can make a guess: the United States, indeed, the world, seems to be regressing, where a few people have wealth and power and everyone else, lacking such, will find their livelihood and dignity will be put at risk. The lack of regulations in the 19th century and the early 20th century led to many needless deaths; it appears the same will happen in our immediate future, but now, thanks to the Supreme Court, the government will have less power to deal with the problem as it has made sure that we, as a society, will not have the means to correct our course when the common good is destroyed.
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In