ALL it takes is one vote. We are not forever stuck with a Supreme Court that has ruled some of the worst decisions by 5-4 votes. One nomination, one vote, could make the dissent the majority. Here’s the kicker: The change in the court may be in a direction few have predicted. It’s not just the liberals who are old or potentially sick, but the conservatives. Illness and voluntary retirement happen unexpectedly. Who would have thought that moderate Sandra Day O’Connor would retire in 2006?
The Supreme Court Justices have more control than you think; they even play a hand in choosing their successor by deciding when to retire, and by doing so, selecting what President will choose their replacement.
It’s true that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 82 (confirmed under Bill Clinton, 1993), is the oldest, and liberals have been pressing her to make room for an Obama appointment but she continues onward, with spunk. However, most of the others, including conservatives, are not far behind:
Antonin Scalia, 79 (Ronald Reagan, 1986)
Anthony M. Kennedy, 78 (Ronald Reagan in 1988)
Stephen Breyer, 76 (Bill Clinton, 1994)
Clarence Thomas, 66 (George H. W. Bush, 1991)
Samuel Alito, 65 (George W. Bush, 2006)
John Roberts, 60 (George W. Bush, 2005)
Sonia Sotomayor, 60 (Barack Obama, 2009)
Elena Kagan, 55 (Barack Obama, 2010)
Justices Kennedy, leaning right, and Breyer, leaning left, tend to be the two deciding swing votes in this Court. Both are in their late 70’s. A strong liberal replacement for either would make the court more progressive.
The cases that could be changed by one vote are enormous. Former Senate Leader George Mitchell told the National Press Club last year, “The Citizens United Decision will go down as one of the worst ever by any Supreme Court.” He said it helps foster a “maddening money chase” in politics, makes it “far worse than before,” and “I hope the American people will rise up against it.
Here is a list of the top six cases that could be reversed by a single vote, with a more progressive Court:
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010— The Court ruled that the First Amendment gives non and for profit corporations, associations and labor unions the power to donate to political campaigns with no funding caps or restrictions. The court went even further in its controversial and disputed “corporations are people” philosophy.
- Shelby County v. Holder, 2013—The Court struck down section 4b of the Voting Rights Act which gives the federal government power over states that have a history of voting discrimination. Despite near-unanimous congressional approval of prior voting rights amendments as specifically authorized in the Constitution for Congress, Justice Scalia voted for the court to override congress due to his belief Congress can’t be trusted: “They’re going to lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act.” To Scalia, democracy is unconstitutional. On the other hand, Justice Ginsberg, among the four minority votes, accurately stated that the Congressional power “is in the constitution.” Republican House and Senate Judiciary Chairs Goodlatte (R-VA) and Grassley (R-IA) have seized on the majority-five ruling as an opportunity to stop improvements in the law while permitting forms of voter suppression.
- Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 2011 – The Court ruled that a female Wal-Mart employee could not file a class action suit alleging gender discrimination on behalf of herself, and 1.5 million Wal-Mart employees.
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014 – The Court blocked Department of Health and Human Services regulations requiring employers, in this case corporations, to provide no-cost birth control to female employees, saying it violates the Religious Freedom Act, again because of their 5-4 view that “corporations are people.”
- Amnesty v. Clapper, 2013—ACLU challenged President Bush’s 2001 wiretapping program expanded by Congress in 2008. The Court 5-4 ruled the legislation constitutional and upheld the NSA’s power, without warrant, to collect lists of international phone calls and emails. The debate continues in Congress as we write.
- Bush v. Gore, 2000—Just five Republican-appointed justices stopped the Florida re-count, making George W. Bush the next president. Because of his policies versus Al Gore’s, critical issues that could have turned out very differently include entering the Iraq War, financial deregulation leading to the 2008 crash, and rich tax breaks expanding income inequality.
The Court will face many more high profile decisions affecting Michigan and the nation in the near future, including the Affordable Care Act, civil rights and gay rights cases, fair housing, women’s health choices, pay equity, and regulation of financial institutions and corporations. The Supreme Court consists of people with pre-existing political and ideological proclivities. Changing the Court could come from age, illness, or something all Americans have power over—the person we elect as President.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.