When it comes to the Supreme Court, there’s a morbid but necessary question hanging in the air these days: How many Americans—or even non-citizens—would have to die before the justices reconsider their extreme, right-wing rulings and the drift toward authoritarianism? Is there a threshold where conscience kicks in? Or are we living with a Court so insulated and ideological that no amount of tragedy can break through?
The Historical Answer: Not Many—And Not Enough
Let’s be brutally honest: the history of the Supreme Court is littered with decisions that resulted in suffering, disenfranchisement, and death. The Court has enabled slavery (Dred Scott), segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson), Japanese internment (Korematsu), and now, in the 21st century, expanded gun rights, stripped away abortion protections, kneecapped voting rights, and greenlit near-total presidential immunity.
Did mass suffering or death ever make them reverse course? Not once.
-
After Dred Scott, it took a civil war and constitutional amendments—not judicial remorse—for change.
-
Plessy wasn’t reversed until Brown v. Board—almost 60 years later.
-
The internment ruling has never been formally overturned.
The Insulated Ideologue Problem
Why? Because the Supreme Court isn’t a moral weather vane. The justices aren’t politicians facing voters. Their lifetime appointments mean they’re shielded from public backlash, no matter how much blood is spilled.
-
Gun violence? More mass shootings, but the Court doubles down on gun “rights.”
-
Maternal deaths post-Roe? They call it a “states’ issue” and move on.
-
Immigrants dying at the border? Not their concern.
-
Pandemic deaths worsened by anti-public health rulings? Judicial detachment reigns.
Authoritarianism Isn’t an Accident—It’s the Plan
The most chilling part: today’s Court isn’t just “right-wing”—it’s enthusiastically paving the way for authoritarianism. With decisions that gut checks and balances, undermine voting rights, and grant sweeping power to the executive, they’re building the legal scaffolding for a system where suffering—however vast—is simply not their problem.
So, What Would It Take?
Frankly, nothing short of new appointments will change the Court’s direction. Not tragedy. Not mass death. Not a destroyed democracy.
-
There is no “body count” threshold that will suddenly trigger a judicial awakening.
-
History shows the Court moves only when the country’s politics change—and new justices are seated.
The Takeaway
If you’re waiting for this Supreme Court to look up from their ideological manifestos and say, “Wow, maybe we’ve gone too far,” you’ll be waiting a long time—and at great cost. The bodies will pile up. The suffering will continue. And the Court will just keep issuing opinions, undisturbed.
Change will only come through the ballot box and the long, grinding work of replacing those who put us here—not from any sudden rush of judicial conscience.
Bottom line:
The Supreme Court today is unmoved by casualties—its motivations are power and, all too often, politics. Don’t expect conscience from a Court built to serve ideology instead of humanity. You have to sympathize with the justices who aren’t on the conservative side, forced to witness the decline of their once-prestigious institution day after day.
Still, I believe America’s better angels will ultimately prevail. This current cohort of justices will pass, leaving behind only their dark history and a legacy of bad decisions—decisions destined to be overturned, and hopefully sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment