| Independence Day is, for many, a chance to celebrate the birth of the United States and reflect on the ideals upon which its constitution was founded: liberty and equality. So it's understandable that many Americans are disappointed with the Supreme Court's choice of gifts this year, which don't exactly honor those sacred principles. Since the Supreme Court's first assembly in 1790, justices have given life to the Constitution and evolved with the times to expand liberty and equality — until now. With a series of transformative, historic rulings on the environment, gun control and women's reproductive health, it's clear that the court's conservative majority means to start a revolution, ending modern constitutional law as we know it. In its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, the court held that the Constitution doesn't confer a right to abortion and overturned Roe v. Wade. With the decision on abortion now returned to the states, the procedure is likely to become illegal in half the US. It's catastrophic for a number of reasons. Millions of women in the US will now have significantly less freedom, less equality and less economic power. Sarah Green Carmichael and Elaine He took a look at exactly how abortion rights change state to state and week by week. They found that abortion bans ignore the reality of pregnancy, and that abortion-ban advocates often misunderstand the reality of abortions. For example, Americans estimate that 5% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, when in fact only 1% do. This decision will have far-reaching economic consequences. Allison Schrager writes that economists found that access to abortion reduced the odds of dropping out of school, being unmarried and living in poverty — especially among Black women. One study found that those denied an abortion suffered more financial distress in subsequent years than those who weren't. The decision is catastrophic for women far beyond the US's borders, too. Clara Ferreira Marques writes that Roe was a reference for rights activists in Europe and Latin America. The risk now is that the US's backward slide will encourage similar reversals abroad. It's also a catastrophe for the human rights many of us now take for granted. Noah Feldman explains that the most basic argument of the Dobbs decision is that, in 1868, states didn't consider abortion a right. This, alongside the fact that the court also overturned Casey and the concept of precedent, means it's open season on other fundamental liberties, such as the right to contraception, the right to choose your own sexual partner or marry the person you love. After all, these weren't rights in 1868, either. The question now is where the fight goes next. Rhonda Vonshay Sharpe argues that we should focus on strengthening abortion rights where they already exist. For example, only 44% of women of childbearing age reside in states where the right to abortion access is encoded in law — with Indigenous, Black and White women underprotected. By getting states who allow abortion, but haven't expressly protected it, to adopt legislation to ensure access, 51% of women would have their rights protected, and the protection of Indigenous, Black and White women would increase substantially. Other vulnerable populations would also be more protected, including low-income women and girls under the age of 15. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, says he'd support changing the filibuster rules in order to restore abortion rights. As Jonathan Bernstein wrote in April 2021, the writing has been on the wall for the filibuster for some time. In another broad, transformative decision, the court's decision in the Bruen case made concealed carry an automatic right for New Yorkers and residents of six other states. Even more astonishingly, the opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas makes Second Amendment rights even more protected than all the other rights in the Constitution, says Noah. At a time when guns are now the leading cause of death among children, Bloomberg's editorial board warns that, with a single ill-considered decision, the Supreme Court has heartened the gun industry and made public spaces less safe.   | The Environmental Protection Agency's job got a lot harder on Thursday, as the Supreme Court held that it lacks the authority to order reduced emissions to fight climate change. In its decision, the court sidestepped the famous Chevron doctrine, which says courts must defer to agencies' reasonable interpretation of laws, and embraced a new "major questions" doctrine. Noah explains that this means when an agency finds a new power in a "vague" grant of statutory authority from Congress, the court must "hesitate before concluding" that the grant of power in fact exists. Climate change is, as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, "the most pressing environmental challenge of our time." The challenge requires us to adopt a cheap, efficient approach if we want to be at all successful in tackling it. The Supreme Court made that harder, writes Liam Denning, and will likely push even more responsibility for cutting emissions to the states. This fragmented approach means higher costs, and slower progress. Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert recently proclaimed, "I'm tired of this separation of church and state junk." That "junk" is protected by the Constitution, with the First Amendment stating: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Yet, in further proof that we're witnessing a jurisprudential revolution, the court has started chipping away at the wall separating church and state. The case of a high school football coach disciplined for praying at the 50-yard line was used to overturn two long-established doctrines. In establishment cases, Noah explains that the court will "no longer examine government action to see if it has a secular purpose and effect, or sends a message of government endorsement of religion." Instead, the court will consider whether government action violates the establishment clause only by historical analysis. This illuminates a larger and more contentious debate over who gets to decide what kids are exposed to at school, notes Stephen L. Carter. In 1925, the court wrote that parents and guardians have the liberty "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." That's something the majority opinion barely touched on, but it was central to the dissent. Many Americans will be feeling disheartened, helpless and angry at a Supreme Court that seems set on returning the US to the days of the Founding Fathers. But there's some hope. In the wake of the Dobbs ruling, the number of US adults who say abortion or women's rights are problems they want the government to work on has gone up. So there are some reasons to celebrate: The Supreme Court's decisions may galvanize activists and politicians into taking legislative action on fundamental rights. Plus, the court just got more diverse. Ketanji Brown Jackson was also sworn in as Justice Breyer's replacement on Thursday — making her the first Black woman and the first former public defender to sit on the Supreme Court. More Supreme Court Reading: Workers of the world are uniting and demanding better pay and conditions. Chris Bryant says it's about time. The surge in gas prices looks bad, but Robert Burgess has some good news. The crypto meltdown has claimed Rolex watches as its first victim, says Andrea Felsted. Notes: To contact the author of this newsletter, email Lara Williams at lwilliams218@bloomberg.net. This is the Theme of the Week edition of Bloomberg Opinion Today, a digest of our top commentary published every Sunday. New subscribers to the newsletter can sign up here. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment