Castigating the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has failed to protect the citizens of the USA. The conservative members are simply politicians in black robes doing the will of the Federalist Society. Here’s my latest letter asking the conservatives to resign.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice
The Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Justice Barrett,
The recent actions of the Court are profoundly disturbing.
Ten years ago, the US Supreme Court had a semblance of virtue and integrity but has now become a collection of extreme right-wing politicians dressed in black robes and slathered with the unpopular values of the Federalist Society.
At this point, I have completely lost faith in the US Supreme Court.
The Court has refused to regulate who is allowed to sit on the courts. The Court failed to create a set of ethical standards that govern its members and their actions. The Court routinely sides with corporations and the powerful over the rights of the individuals. The so-called shadow docket is now used to avoid transparency of its right-wing agenda. The latest failure to act on the Texas SB8, banning abortions after 6 weeks, and empowering citizens to act as vigilantes is obscene considering abortion is still legal.
The Supreme Court’s legitimacy has vanished. The Court no longer has integrity. The right-wing members of the Court should all be impeached and replaced with impartial judges who can uphold the law. I hope that President Biden decides to create nine more Supreme Court positions to negate the biased-conservative side of the court.
I encourage the following justices to resign immediately: Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Your resignations would restore faith and trust in the US Supreme Court.
For further details documenting the failures of the Court, please refer to Appendix A.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Ragan, Jr., Ph.D.
CC: JGR, CT, SGB, SAA, SS, EK, NMG, BMK, ACB
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —— — —
Appendix A — Current Failures of the US Supreme Court
1) Failure to protect voting rights:
> Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 594 U.S., July 1, 2021
> Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, June 25, 2013
Comments: If the Court is unwilling to protect voting rights, a basic constitutional right inscribed in the Constitution, then the court has no integrity.
2) Failure to eliminate Partisan Gerrymandering
> Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al, 18–422, June 27, 2019
Comments: Rather than look at the math and see the purpose of gerrymandering is to gain unfair political advantage by creating bizarrely shaped voting districts, the Court opted for the status quo that allows the political party in power to create boundaries that favor them, rather than voting districts that represent the correct proportion of voters in a state. Again, the Court failed to protect voting rights by passing the buck to Congress and maintaining the status quo that favors right-wing politics.
3) Failure to give citizens an equal voice in politics — Dark Money
> Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, 1/21/ 2010
Comments: Monetary contributions are not “political speech.” This highly flawed ruling gave the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions fueled by Super PACs. This money cannot be tracked, so we don’t even know if this money is from within the USA or given to politicians by foreign entities. This ruling is obscene in that it allows wealthy people undue influence over American politics. The rich and corporations now have a much louder voice than the rest of the electorate combined. Once again, the Court failed to create a balanced, equitable system of political influence. Instead, the Court has allowed the richest people to politically dominate the average citizen.
4) Failure for the Court to regulate itself, concerning members and ethics
The FBI admitted that it failed to investigate even the most “relevant” of the 4,500 tips it received during an investigation into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Since Kavanaugh was not property vetted, why doesn’t the Court vet him independently now, or have the FBI complete their investigation now? How did his $60k-$100 credit card debt vanish? Since the FBI did not follow up on the thousands of credible tips, what about the sexual misconduct allegations? These should be fully investigated — transparently.
Comments: The above shows how the Court failed to regulate itself and its members. Furthermore, what about the ethics of admitting Gorsuch and Barrett under such political inconsistency. Doesn’t the Court have any rules it would propose to ensure fair selection of its members via Congress, or acceptance of potential members by the Court?
5) Failure to side with the citizens, highly the Court is highly biased to Corporate and Conservative interests
The Court has delivered for corporate or conservative interests in 73 partisan decisions during the Roberts era, “with big Republican donor interests winning 73 out of 73 decisions.” Reference: [Slate.com, By Sheldon Whitehouse, The Supreme Court’s Anti-Worker Rulings Are So Routine Now That We Hardly Notice Them. April 26, 2019]
Comments: Again, the US Supreme Court has shown extreme bias in many cases favoring corporations and conservative interests. The Court has no credibility left. The conservative wing of the US Supreme Court must resign to restore any faith in its ability to render impartial decisions.
6) Failure to curb abuses of the Court’s use of the Shadow Docket
The shadow docket is used for emergency orders and summary decisions from the Court. This procedure does not give the opportunity of oral arguments and the details of which member voted for the decision. Its misuse has become more and more egregious. The true purpose of the shadow docket is to render rapid decisions when irrevocable harm might ensue. Using the shadow docket for cases such as Texas SB8, banning abortions after 6 weeks is an abomination. There was no urgency to stop abortions in Texas, abortions are still legal in the USA.
Comments: The Court should not reach out to decide important questions, even on an interim basis, before the lower courts have had a full opportunity to do so. Furthermore, this technique over the last decade appears unfair and arbitrary since the Court facilitates shadow docket decisions for government but fails to do so for private parties.
Overall, this conservative Court is much more interested in protecting the rich and powerful, to the detriment of “We the people.” The conservative side of the Court is not composed of unbiased jurists, but simply politicians implementing the Federalist Society’s values.
End.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
References (Not sent to SCOTUS)…
End.
