Enter Gilead
#personal notes
As a Canadian, the concept of conservative vs liberal judges is difficult for me to understand. I’m not naive enough to believe in pure neutrality, any more than I believe in photographic objectivity. But shouldn’t a judge—any judge—at least aspire to this? Otherwise, justice isn’t blind at all: it’s a personal quest.
And yet, America has accepted as fact a Supreme Court where justices are appointed or rejected based on specific agendas. It’s all wrapped in scholarly verbiage and pretence, but that’s what it is. The highest court in the land is yet another power grab. A numbers game. From The Globe And Mail this weekend (Apple News link—emphasis mine):
The central idea in the ruling to overturn the precedent set in Roe v. Wade in 1973 was that, in the view of the majority, the right to an abortion did not exist in the United States until late in the 20th century...
“I think this is a perfect decision for the 18th century,” Rosalie Abella, who is now the Samuel and Judith Pisar Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School, said in an interview. Ms. Abella retired last summer after 17 years on the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Roe v. Wade decision is terrifying in its ramifications, and era-defining, but the rationale behind it is downright bone-chilling. Because if rights are to be defined by pre-20th century rulings or principles, then nothing is safe. Again, from Ms. Abella:
...taking away long-settled rights means that even Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that barred racial segregation in public schools, could be reversed.
“That to me is as inconceivable as what they did today. And yet they did it. It’s a frightening precedent, and delegitimizes the integrity of a court.”
Inconceivable—and yet, the logic behind the ruling makes it possible. Every right acquired in the past 50 years is now at risk, in America. We can analyze and scrutinize, but all the legal twisting in the world can’t hide one, terrible reality: this US Supreme Court is no longer interested in the rule of law. Its foundation lies in ideology.
Margaret Atwood, to our collective horror, might just be the seer she never wanted to be.
