The Supreme's Sing A Reactionary Song: Saturday Political Soap Box 187

The Supreme Court is a'fixin' to change.

Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring on July 31st.

This will give the Russian influenced narrow electoral college winner, Donald J. Trump, a second Supreme Court Justice.  Justice Kennedy had a reputation for rare jogs off the reservation (gay marriage, Roe v. Wade), and this change will put a lock on a reactionary agenda.

Most would say conservative, but I believe reactionary would be a closer fit.  Their primary goal is to turn back time, by taking away hard-fought-for rights, whether it's women's rights, voting rights, minority rights, and more.  They will consistently side with large corporations and the wealthy. 

Justice Kennedy was no prize.  He sided with the reactionary majority much more often than not.  His vote could be counted on with most decisions involving corporate power,  He wrote the Citizens United decision that helped flood our system with big money donors.  He was no friend to the working man.  He was the swing vote that selected Bush, Jr. to be President of the United States.

There was some consternation that Justice Kennedy chose this time to retire, and did not wait a few months when election results would make more evident the intent of the American people.  Surprise!  Mr. So-called Moderate is more tied to the Trump administration than perhaps any other justice  Turns out, and this is so amusing that we didn't know this earlier, that his son has been Trump's primary contact at Deutsche Bank in Germany, the only bank  that would lend him money for quite a stretch (not including private lenders, like Russian oligarchs).

This will not be a significant change then, except that it shores up the majority for quite awhile, as Trump will pick a consistent reactionary, one who is much younger, and could theoretically serve for decades,

And this might not be the only one.  If one of the four moderate/liberal judges leaves, the majority could be locked at 6 to 3. 

So what will this mean to the future?

Well, it's always hard to know for sure, but really, the future looks bright,  This last week, the incredibly talented Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez upended the number four ranked Democrat in the House by decisively winning the Democratic primary in her Congressional District.  A young, dedicated, hard-working progressive replaced a moderate Democrat who believed in the power of special interest money.  She was outspent ten to one, and she still won.

The future is bright, and the future is progressive!

But none of that may matter if the Court is solidly reactionary.  We may be faced with a period where great progressive legislation is finally passed, only to be subsequently overturned by a reactionary Supreme Court.

Can Democrats stop this nomination, at least delay it until after the election when they might gain a majority in the Senate?

No.  I don't think they can.

They are counting on the McConnell  Rule, that you can't vote on a nominee close to an election.  Ha!  Like that's a real rule!  That was just a power play by the Republicans.  And now they'll reverse course, without a sense of guilt or shame.

They are counting on a couple of Republican women to hold out on principle, notably Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.  Ha!  They'll cave with the Republican majority.  It's the Democrats who will have trouble staying united.  Some of their blue dogs are already getting queasy.

For my Christian Right friends who think this means Roe v. Wade will go down, you may be right.  But it won't do what you think it will do.  States will still have the power to allow abortion or not, and there will be states that will keep it.  So the total number of abortions will probably rise instead of fall, especially as birth control access is interfered with, and more schools switch to the ineffectual sex education substitute of abstinence-only.

Also increasing will be the number of back-alley abortions that will physically damage women, and lead to more deaths.

Not to mention the increase in mortality due to other actions of a reactionary Supreme Court.  Fewer environmental regulations lead to a more polluted environment which will kill more people.  Rejecting plans to increase health care coverage will lead to inadequate care and more deaths.  Fewer workplace regulations will lead to more deaths.

I know.  I paint a grim picture.  But you know what?  It is grim.

Grim, but not hopeless. 

Stay tuned.