“Equal Justice Under the Law” is the Court’s motto, and in some ways (oddly enough), the Court may in fact be more representative of the make-up of our nation than our actual representatives. Every one of President Obama’s Supreme Court nominations (all two, that is) have been women, expanding female representation in our government and on the Court. We have an African American Justice, a Latina Justice, and two Jewish Justices. And all these proportions – 1 out of 9, 2 out of 9, 3 women out of 9 – are likely larger (and therefore more representative) proportions of our population in government than those proportions of the same demographics in our Congress, which we talked about in class just this week.
That being said, however, some of the Court’s decisions – and indeed, some of the Court’s indecision or inaction – are so diametrically opposed to its motto that it is appalling we accept the Court as it stands today. Of these is the recent Citizens United ruling, which not only opposes the Constitution the Court is supposed to protect, but fundamentally breaks with the founding of this nation, which was based on an individual’s right to consent to be governed – and corporations are not individuals. The Court’s inaction in seriously divisive social issues makes our current Justices appear much smaller than their predecessors, who established the great precedent they say they follow. The corporate greed that fueled our financial collapse could have been curtailed by the Court. Even the hot-button topic of gay marriage, a political football in our society today, could be addressed by the Court and handled so as to set precedent in providing equality: according to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, marriages in one state performed under that state’s law should be recognized in other states even if they haven’t legalized gay marriage. This idea of “Full Faith and Credit” is another topic we discussed in class recently, and it is surprising to this observer that it has not been brought up as the pivotal clause in this social debate.
The Court’s inaction in regard to one of their own – Clarence Thomas – is also quite appalling. Thomas, whose nomination should never have been approved in the first place, has of late been showing his disregard for the Law itself. His wife is a conservative spokesperson who rakes in thousands (if not millions) of dollars in speaking engagements, in addition to raising money for conservative candidates through the indirect channels of PACs. This being inappropriate enough (for the spouse of a supposedly unbiased, “non-political” justice), Thomas refuses to recuse himself in cases in which his wife’s activities could potentially create a conflict of interest. It is quite shocking that the Congress, in light of these facts, hasn’t moved to impeach him, although at the same time, I can understand the awfully dangerous precedent this would set. If the Congress impeached every Justice they disagreed with, we wouldn’t have a Court left – and this is precisely why the Court needs to take action and disavow their colleague’s egregious behavior.
These deviances from the Court’s motto aside, I do believe the Supreme Court as a “Temple” is in some respects appropriate. The Court is the heart and soul of our country, and its humongous role in our history and our lives unfortunately goes unnoticed all too often.
aueagle 