MANY MILLIONS WERE INVESTED INTO SCOTUS TO BE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS
Reality as I see it, trust in our US Supreme Court, and the Dred Scott decision
It occurred to me in the coverage of the mainstream media (MSNBC) on today’s US Supreme Court and the antics of several of its members, that I got the impression that some may think that the SCOTUS might moderate if only enough people know the truth about them. I personally highly doubt this will ever happen. They will not enact ethics rules on their own, they will not moderate their stances, they will continue to play loose with the law, invoking the most outrageous reasons for their decisions as they have in the past. It’s simply that they do not respect public opinion, as it is closely synonymous with democracy, and they despise democracy. They are currently on the bench to eliminate democracy in my opinion, and they are living high on the hog to do so. Right wing billionaires control this court entirely most likely, and these oligarchs want to make things better only for oligarchs. And they, these proponents of the Unitary Executive, dislike democracy greatly as it interferes with their rate of wealth accumulation, and the thought of anyone lower on the economic ladder benefiting from their tax dollars enrages their ire. So with this sentiment in my mind (as cynical as it might be) I wrote my verse today and added a few quotes which were deemed as applicable.
I did a term search on X of “Supreme Court trust” to see what I might find. Here are the results, with a quote thrown in.
Reluctantly, I did the same term search on Truth Social, not really knowing what to expect. Seems it’s a mixed bag among MAGA concerning trust. Some totally distrust all people, while one individual trusted Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court especially well. John Roberts seems to not have the MAGA street cred among many. In any case, it was entertaining if nothing else.
I wished to learn a little more about really bad US Supreme Court decisions. I found a blog entry below on the thirteen worst decisions through time according to Casey C. Sullivan. I have not the expertise to really evaluate his choices so I settled on adopting them at this time. The worst decision was the Dred Scott decision according to Sullivan. I had often heard this decision referenced but never really studied it to any extent. I still haven’t but, below I address it a little. The most important point in my mind is that this court in 1857 was made up of men closely aligned with the southern oligarchs of the day. That is my impression as to how this very bad decision in Dred Scott might relate to recent bad decisions. That is the court of today might be similar to that court in that only the big money interests are considered. I’ve only listed the decisions which I’m familiar with from this blog below, follow the link for the entirety.
Thirteen worst Supreme Court Decisions
By Casey C. Sullivan, Esq. on October 14, 2015 | Last updated on March 21, 2019
Every once in a while, the Supreme Court will decide a case that has widespread social and political impact, striking down discriminatory laws, upholding cherished institutions, and protecting individual liberties. But not all Supreme Court opinions are great.
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.
11. Bush v. Gore (2000)
12. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008):
13. Citizens United v. FEC (2010):
I found some good background on the Dred Scott decision from a university site. Briefly here is what the case involved. I must say that the Dobbs decision is having a political effect on the country today. Perhaps in this way it might correspond loosely to Dred Scott in getting people activated.
On March 6, 1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. John Sanford, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that African Americans were not and could not be citizens. Taney wrote that the Founders' words in the Declaration of Independence, “all men were created equal,” were never intended to apply to blacks.
The Taney court was dominated by pro-slavery judges from the South. Of the nine, seven judges had been appointed by pro-slavery Presidents — five, in fact, came from slave-holding families. The decision was viewed by many as a victory for the Southern “Slavocracy,” and a symbol of the power the South had over the highest court.
The dramatic ripple effect of Dred Scott — a ruling historians widely agree was one of the worst racially-based decisions ever handed down by the United States Supreme Court — reached across the states and territories. It sent shivers through the North and the free African-American community. Technically, no black was free of re-enslavement.
Free Blacks, many of whom had been in Northern states for years, once again lived in fear of being hunted down and taken back to the South in servitude. Southern slave laws allowed marshals to travel north in search of escaped slaves. The ruling was such a concern to Free Blacks, that many seriously considered leaving the United States for Canada or Liberia.
The decision played a role in propelling Abraham Lincoln — an outspoken anti-slavery voice — into the White House. The slavery issue had already created a turbulent, volatile atmosphere throughout the nation. Dred Scott, like kerosene tossed onto a simmering fire, played a significant role in igniting the Civil War. The North became ready to combat what it viewed as the South's disproportionate influence in government.
Here is just a little from the decision itself. This gives a taste of it. Note that these folks are saying that democracy can not exist if slavery is abolished and true equality attempted. The property argument is always included in the oligarchy friendly mind of that day, although their argument didn’t really include it as the primary driver.
THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. (from the Library of Congress)
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY DR. J. H. VAN EVRIE ALSO, AN APPENDIX, NATURAL HISTORY OF THE PROGNATHOUS RACE Of Mankind, PUBLISHED BY VAN EVRIE, HORTON & CO., AT THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK DAY-BOOK, 40 ANN STREET, NEW YORK.
1860.
INTRODUCTION BY DR. J. H. VAN EVRIE.
This opinion of Chief Justice Taney and those of his eminent colleagues of the Supreme Court of the Republic, is an epoch in our civil history, which is doubtless destined in all future time to be a land mark in American civilization.
There were, doubtless, as there are now, modifications in regard to detail, but the great foundation principle, the subordination or “slavery” of this negro element was universal, and for two hundred years and upwards unquestioned in a single instance on this continent, or indeed any other. The various American communities legislated on the subject: they protected the “slave” from the vices or cruelty of the master, while they provided for the welfare of the latter and the general security of this species of property; but all this was in view of the existing fact, the natural relation and fundamental principle of mixed societies the “slavery” of the negro. They regulated, but of course did not establish or institute this so-called slavery; for like the relations of the sexes, of parents and children, &c., it was inherent, pre-existing, and sprung spontaneously from the necessities of human society. The white man was superior—the negro was inferior—and in juxtaposition, society could only exist, and can only exist, by placing them in natural relation to each other, or by the social subordination, or so-called slavery of the negro.
One-sixth of our population were negroes—a subordinate social element—which, incorporated and amalgamated with the white citizenship, would so debase and deteriorate the latter, that equality would be undermined, lost and annihilated altogether, and Democracy rendered impracticable and impossible for ever. Will any one doubt this, or venture to say that we might incorporate the negro element of our population with the white citizenship, and yet preserve our institutions, the purity of our principles, the life of our democratic system?
Whatever the course or the legislation of sovereign States, henceforth and forever the status of the negro, his relation to the white citizens, and the rights of the latter in respect to “slave” property, are now clearly defined within the Federal jurisdiction. And this decision must be accepted and sustained by the northern masses, or there must be disunion and dismemberment of the Union; for the States and people having this negro element in their midst, cannot, even if they would, consent to any compromise in this respect, and therefore if the northern people, led astray by the agents and dupes of the enemies of Democracy, refuse to abide by it, there is for the south no alternative but disunion and the establishment of a new confederacy in conformity with the wants and necessities of southern society. It remains, then, for the honest and patriotic citizens of the North who would avoid this calamity of disunion, and save for their offspring the glorious institutions won by the blood and sacrifices of their fathers, to abandon the false mental habits imposed on them by the enemies of these institutions, and, accepting the fixed and immutable truths of the Dred Scott decision, to regard as enemies to the peace of the country, and indeed to the safety of society, all those who, under the pretence of negro liberty, would render liberty for the white man impossible.
I think I need a shower after reading this garbage. We have advanced some since that time perhaps. But undoubtedly many around today would have melded in nicely with these US Supreme Court justices of that time. And I can’t but see the parallel from the court of today and that one back then. I honestly think they are not that far removed from one another. Or perhaps more correctly, certain members of today’s nine might have found a welcome home in this court of 1857. Thanks for reading.
98th posting, September 23, 2023