Lhe protective fence that encloses today in Washington the immaculate seat of the highest judicial authority of the United States of America speaks well of the danger that threatens it: that of cutting itself off from the country by pure ideological drift. In two judgments handed down on June 23 and 24, the conservative judges of the Supreme Court, which has nine members, have in fact sacrificed to two totems of the religious right: the intractable defense of firearms in the name of a freedom that must suffer no limits; and the tireless fight against women’s right to control their own bodies.
These two obsessions may be shared by only a minority of their fellow citizens, but these judges ignored the sage advice of constitutional lawyer John Freund that they should never be influenced « by today’s weather “, but take into account, on the other hand, “of the climate of the time”. They have indeed reversed both a law restricting the carrying of weapons in force in the State of New York for more than a century, and the famous judgment Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed in 1992, which had sanctioned the right to abortion since 1973.
By entrusting the States with the power to legislate in the matter (despite the futile reservations of the President, also a conservative, of the Supreme Court, the chief justice John Roberts), while corseting them when it comes to framing the carrying of weapons, these judges shamelessly claim to be on a mission for a camp and that this loyalty prevails over any other consideration. One of them, Clarence Thomas, further fueled the concern by questioning the constitutional protection enjoyed by contraception, same-sex sexual relations and gay marriage, in the name of a moral order of another age.
tyranny of a minority
This devastating epilogue for the image of the United States is the product of the tyranny of a minority permitted by an electoral system outrageously favorable to the most conservative states. He had a president largely defeated in the popular vote, Donald Trump, nominate three judges selected by a lobby, and then have them confirmed by a Senate that is a distorted reflection of the country.
What to think of the writer of the judgment against abortion, Samuel Alito, when he justifies this reversal of jurisprudence in the name of the one who had put an end to racial segregation? The judgment of June 24 does not enshrine a new right, it suppresses one. There is an assertion that abortion is not “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions”. Note also the fact that two of the judges appointed by Donald Trump had assured before their confirmation by the Senate, to pass the obstacle, that they considered Roe v. Wade as granted…
The Supreme Court should have kept its distance from the deadly polarization that is increasingly dividing the United States, to preserve essential legitimacy. The consent of the citizens protects it much more surely than the irremovability of judges appointed for life. By failing in this duty of reserve, it stirs up passions. Its members are already under police protection after a gunman who came to kill one of the Conservatives after the first draft of the abortion ruling was leaked turned himself in to the police as a preventive measure.
In the heart of the federal capital, facing a Congress assailed on January 6, 2021 by a horde contesting the result of the presidential election, this Supreme Court under siege is now a sad allegory, that of American democratic collapse.
Lhe protective fence that encloses today in Washington the immaculate seat of the highest judicial authority of the United States of America speaks well of the danger that threatens it: that of cutting itself off from the country by pure ideological drift. In two judgments handed down on June 23 and 24, the conservative judges of the Supreme Court, which has nine members, have in fact sacrificed to two totems of the religious right: the intractable defense of firearms in the name of a freedom that must suffer no limits; and the tireless fight against women’s right to control their own bodies.
These two obsessions may be shared by only a minority of their fellow citizens, but these judges ignored the sage advice of constitutional lawyer John Freund that they should never be influenced « by today’s weather “, but take into account, on the other hand, “of the climate of the time”. They have indeed reversed both a law restricting the carrying of weapons in force in the State of New York for more than a century, and the famous judgment Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed in 1992, which had sanctioned the right to abortion since 1973.
By entrusting the States with the power to legislate in the matter (despite the futile reservations of the President, also a conservative, of the Supreme Court, the chief justice John Roberts), while corseting them when it comes to framing the carrying of weapons, these judges shamelessly claim to be on a mission for a camp and that this loyalty prevails over any other consideration. One of them, Clarence Thomas, further fueled the concern by questioning the constitutional protection enjoyed by contraception, same-sex sexual relations and gay marriage, in the name of a moral order of another age.
tyranny of a minority
This devastating epilogue for the image of the United States is the product of the tyranny of a minority permitted by an electoral system outrageously favorable to the most conservative states. He had a president largely defeated in the popular vote, Donald Trump, nominate three judges selected by a lobby, and then have them confirmed by a Senate that is a distorted reflection of the country.
What to think of the writer of the judgment against abortion, Samuel Alito, when he justifies this reversal of jurisprudence in the name of the one who had put an end to racial segregation? The judgment of June 24 does not enshrine a new right, it suppresses one. There is an assertion that abortion is not “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions”. Note also the fact that two of the judges appointed by Donald Trump had assured before their confirmation by the Senate, to pass the obstacle, that they considered Roe v. Wade as granted…
The Supreme Court should have kept its distance from the deadly polarization that is increasingly dividing the United States, to preserve essential legitimacy. The consent of the citizens protects it much more surely than the irremovability of judges appointed for life. By failing in this duty of reserve, it stirs up passions. Its members are already under police protection after a gunman who came to kill one of the Conservatives after the first draft of the abortion ruling was leaked turned himself in to the police as a preventive measure.
In the heart of the federal capital, facing a Congress assailed on January 6, 2021 by a horde contesting the result of the presidential election, this Supreme Court under siege is now a sad allegory, that of American democratic collapse.