How the Supreme Court Became the Extreme Court

[In It to Win It]

The Nation

No Paywall

During the past 30 years, Republicans began stacking the court with a new kind of justice—the zealot who not only ignores precedent but ignores reality itself.






In 1992, fundamentalist Christians who wished to see theocratic law imposed on the rest of the country were stabbed in the back by a conservative Supreme Court. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the court ruled, 5-4, to affirm the right to abortion before fetal viability as recognized in Roe v. Wade. The court placed significant new restrictions on reproductive rights, but it didn’t overturn Roe. All five justices who voted to affirm Roe were appointed by Republican presidents. Indeed, the 1992 court comprised eight justices appointed by Republicans. Only Byron White—who was nominated by John F. Kennedy—was appointed by a Democrat, and he joined the dissent against Casey and Roe.

Now, 30 years after Casey, the fundamentalists have the court they want. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned Casey and Roe, by a vote of 6-3. All six justices appointed by Republican presidents concurred in the judgment; all three appointed by Democrats opposed it.

What has changed in the intervening years about the kinds of justices Republicans appoint? It’s not like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush tried to appoint justices who would frustrate the white fundamentalist Christian agenda.

The principal difference between conservative justices then and conservative justices now is that the conservatives of 30 years ago were practical. They didn’t like abortions, but they understood that no society in history had successfully prevented them. They understood that criminalizing doctors who can perform the procedures safely only leads to unsafe, unregulated procedures and off-label use of drugs or homeopathic therapies. They understood that pregnant people will seek control over their bodies, whether or not the state or the courts or the church acknowledge their bodily autonomy.

They sought out fanatics who would be willing to ignore the practical implications of their rulings—zealots who would not only ignore precedent but ignore reality itself. And they succeeded.

[Casady1]

1. Do you mean cultist Barrett

and swing d**k in your face kavanaugh are nutcases?