Supreme Being

As  I watched the video of Justice Clarence Thomas swearing in Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the 115th Justice of the United States Supreme Court, I wondered if Justice Thomas was thinking about the several similarities between himself and his new colleague. Like Justice Coney Barrett, Justice Thomas replaced a liberal judicial icon who used the law to dismantle enduring inequities in our society and its institutions. Both Justices were nominated by conservative Republican Presidents who had succeeded enormously popular predecessors (though I concede that the similarities between the George H.W. Bush and Donald Trump Administrations begin and end there).  Both Justices survived deeply contentious confirmation battles and made it onto the Court by the same slim majority in the Senate, 52-48.  And both Justices became symbols for the issues roiling the political waters of their respective moments in history.  The confirmation hearing for Justice Thomas put the issue of sexual harassment on the national stage and, one might argue, planted the seeds of the Me Too Movement.  In the case of Justice Coney Barrett, the fates of abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) now hang in the proverbial balance of her judicial tenure.

Much has been made of the perceived hypocrisy of Senate Republicans as they pursued their successful strategy to confirm Justice Coney Barrett mere weeks before the 2020 Presidential Election.  After all, this same Republican majority refused even to consider Judge Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, several months before the 2016 Presidential Election.  Whatever one may think of the behavior of either the Republicans or the Democrats during these two episodes, at the end of the day, the cold, hard political truth is that the U.S. Constitution is interpreted by the Party with the most votes.

The intensity of current partisan maneuvering over the composition and direction of the Supreme Court obscures the fact that the Founders believed that the Judicial Branch would be the weakest and least threatening of the three Branches of the Federal Government created by the Constitution.  As the Founders understood the world, the two greatest powers that a government could possess were the power to levy taxes and the power to declare war, which were apportioned to the Legislative and Executive Branches, respectively.  The Judicial Branch was imbued with the authority to interpret and preserve the law, an awesome responsibility, to be sure, but not one that would infringe upon the daily existence of the citizens of the young Republic.  The Justices of the Supreme Court, argued Alexander Hamiltion in Federalist 78, were to be the “faithful guardians of the Constitution” against the unbridled passion and corruption that threatened every system of government since the beginning of civilization.  And the only armor that the Justices would have in this eternal struggle against absolute power would be the lifetime appointment to the bench; or in the language of the Constitution, Justices would “hold their offices during good behaviour.”

I have not read Justice Coney Barrett’s earlier decisions or followed the arc of her career, and therefore cannot comment on the quality or depth of her intellect.  I do not know her personally, and therefore will not speculate on what is in her heart or moves her soul.  Like my fellow Americans, I am left with the fervent hope that our newest Justice remains true to the words she spoke last night after being sworn in by Justice Thomas:

“A judge declares independence, not only from Congress and the President, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her. The Judicial Oath captures the essence of the judicial duty. The rule of law must always control.

“My fellow Americans, even though we judges don’t face elections, we still work for you. It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial independence that is so central to it. The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the Democratic Republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it.”

Remember, Justice Coney Barrett, Alexander Hamilton is still watching.

The South Will Rise Again

I was born by the river in a little tent
Oh and just like the river I’ve been running ever since
It’s been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will

It’s been too hard living but I’m afraid to die
‘Cause I don’t know what’s up there beyond the sky
It’s been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will

I go to the movie and I go downtown
Somebody keep telling me, “Don’t hang around”
It’s been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will

Then I go to my brother
And I say, “Brother, help me please”
But he winds up knockin’ me
Back down on my knees

Oh there been times that I thought I couldn’t last for long
But now I think I’m able to carry on
It’s been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will

      “A Change is Gonna Come” — Sam Cooke

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has left the building for the summer, but not before handing down a pair of significant and — depending upon your orientation (pun intended) — earth-shaking decisions. By striking down both a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the High Court might appear to some observers to be suffering from some sort of judicial schizophrenia. Others may see these rulings as reflections of American society’s increasing acceptance of homosexuality on the one hand and its deep ambivalence about race on the other.

I am not a legal scholar and am by no means qualified to expound upon the Constitutional implications of these decisions. Rather, I am fascinated by the possibility that these judgments could have a profound effect upon my native region of the country: the South.

Obviously, it is not necessary to review here the South’s disgraceful history of racism and homophobia. Academic and legal careers have been and continue to be built upon these twin pillars of shame; and the popular media have made and continue to reap billions depicting Southern culture and exporting it to the world. Southerners continue to be the butt of jokes and are pitied/hated as hopeless relics of an age long past and best forgotten. (Consider the latest Exhibit A: the Paula Deen controversy.) Black Southerners, in particular, are in a bind. On the one hand they decry the Voting Rights Act decision as a blatant attempt by a conservative Court to roll back one of the most momentous outcomes of the Civil Rights Era. On the other, they denounce same-sex marriage — not to mention the very existence of homosexuality itself — as an abomination before God. (I have more to say about Black people and homophobia, but will save those comments for another time.)

As I pondered the consequences of the Supreme Court’s rulings in these cases, it occurred to me that SCOTUS has handed the Southland a unique opportunity to change not only its “brand” (to use modern parlance), but also its soul. Finally in the second decade of the twenty-first century, my beloved Dixie can lead the nation into the post-racial, post-sexual orientation Promised Land. Who will be the New Moses to lead us on this fantastic journey? Perhaps it will not be a politician or a preacher or a prophet who will (or should) do this. Perhaps this Utopian goal will be achieved instead by neighbors meeting and getting to know each other in the sames ways our parents and grandparents did — and through the new platforms brought to us in the Age of Social Media. If change is gonna come, it must start at the kitchen table, around the water cooler, in the pews, on main street, in Google+ Hangouts, on Twitter, on Facebook, and anywhere else that We the People gather and exchange opinions.

Let me be the first to admit that this idea — this fervent prayer — seems at best far-fetched. But then, sometimes the best ideas are like that — just beyond our grasp, but not beyond our imagination. And to my fellow pessimists out there, I leave you with this grain of hope: it was a loyal son of the South who, as President, signed Civil Rights legislation, including the Voting Rights Act, into law. Surely, we can be as tough, determined, persuasive, and creative as Lyndon Johnson was half a century ago.