Decisions, Decisions: How The Supreme Court Is Decimating Our Democracy One Decision At A Time

 Today, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Clean Air Act didn't apply to carbon dioxide and therefore can't be regulated by the EPA. “Hard on the heels of snatching away fundamental liberties, the right-wing activist court just curtailed vital climate action,” Jason Rylander, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, responded in a press statement Thursday. The court ruled that only Congress can make laws regarding the level of CO2 emissions. Interestingly the case came to the court due to then-president Trump trying to relax the guidelines which a federal court put a hold on. The result of this ruling is likely to create a free-for-all among states who want to loosen the law versus those who wish to strengthen it. In the meanwhile, global climate change continues and temperatures and sea levels are rising. “Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the minority joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent.

The decision is impactful to the EPA's ability to do its job. Whether it is limiting emissions from power plants to operating the existing cap-and-trade carbon offset policy, it may also give a peek into other backward steps the court and its conservative majority likely will take. “Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by the five other conservative justices. Further, he added, “On EPA’s view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy,” Roberts wrote. “There is little reason to think Congress did so.” In instances like this, he said, “[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.” 

Regardless of this decision, the Environmental Protection Agency was formed to serve as the watchdog over the nation's environment and enact policies to preserve it, but you would think that this was some kind of fly-by-night operation that requires Congress to hold its hand to do its job. Also, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are a little difficult to maintain when the court is treating people like the frogs in the warm water experiment. Suffice to say, with the slew of recent decisions that have been handed down by this court, democracy as we know it is likely to fail us. It would seem like nobody can wrestle the steering wheel away from these unelected lifers, but the court could be expanded to lessen their impact.

A Tough "Roe" to Hoe

 With the US Supreme Court decision now official, people now are right to question what will a post-Roe world look like. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 26 states are likely or certain to ban abortions leaving 24 and the District of Columbia as places where it may remain legal. In Iowa, with a Republican stranglehold in all the key places, our state legislature is likely to either limit the window of abortion or ban it outright in the next legislative session. In addition, there may be an amendment offered to our state constitution banning abortions permanently, though that would require a majority of Iowans to vote for it.

Currently, Iowa ranks 20th in quality of life for children according to MSN and a high degree of maltreatment of children (65.6 children of 1000 in reported cases of abuse or neglect).  

All of this leads to a simple decision, do Iowans truly prize their liberties and choose to maintain their rights, like the state motto says or do we revert back to a place where women's life and healthcare decisions are limited by the draconian state they live in? We already know where our governor stands on this and her party leaders. The line that prevents them to exert their will is dotted by the November 2022 election which strongly favors them. If ever there was a time to get involved in state politics, this would be it. Support those candidates who support you and the things you believe in.

A Government "Shutdown" of a Different Kind

What a week it has been and not a whole lot to be supercharged about. SCOTUS has said that you can pretty much carry a gun anywhere you want except near their homes and other "sensitive" areas. You realize that justice is not blind, but is being blinded by the Six Stooges that are the majority opinion of the aforementioned case. 

At about the same time that Congress takes action on sensible gun laws, the courts decide to become activists for gun rights. Is this coincidental or a way to allow the Republicans to say "Well, at least I tried--but the SCOTUS knows better, I guess"? This political impotence is dangerous to democracy and having a religiously-bent, free-market-leaning Supreme Court just exacerbated this. 

Add to it the circus of Congressional hearings that will likely not lead to anybody being convicted of anything and at the least, opens the window for profiting from decidedly criminal behavior, particularly if the mid-term elections are the bloodbath that is being "predicted" by the media and pollsters.

Then stir in profiteers who are making money and flaming inflation in their wakes and whose campaign contributions make it difficult to go after for ripping all of us off. Even the Federal Reserve Bank admits that hoisting interest rates won't help us out on gas and groceries, but will likely keep people out of housing that they are already having a hard time affording. So there's that.

So what do we have to look forward to? Essentially a government "shutdown" by being made impotent through greed, power grabs, and flagging belief in it as an institution by a weary public. And this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg as other rights will likely be dissembled by the social architects in judges' robes (the next being Roe V. Wade). In so doing, the patriarchs and oligarchs win and democracy fails unless we stop rewarding the corrupt by throwing the wrong "bums" out. Mid-term elections are not glamorous, but they are important nonetheless. Hold the line while we still have a line to hold.

Before We Leave Town

 Politicians are notoriously brave when they are a) retiring b) when they are in the minority c) actually believe in what they are fighting for d) know they will be defeated/choose to retire, so you have to ask: why do they wait so long? This leads me to the current bipartisan gun legislation. Of the 10 Republicans involved, 4 are retiring at the end of their terms. Not having to worry about the NRA or Second Amendment or Die folks, certainly frees them up to vote their conscience and have a meaningful legacy. For the other 6, their re-election cycles are far enough off that they feel they can do "something" as people have been asking them to do (also most are at an age where retirement is not out of the question). 

But what will that something look like? It certainly does not look like raising the age of people owning semi-automatic assault-like rifles or banning those weapons again (as happened in 1994) is part of the agenda. On the other hand, enhanced background checks for buyers under the age of 21 and measures to close the so-called "boyfriend loophole," which would prevent domestic abusers from owning guns are likely to be helpful. Still, if we are trying to reduce gun violence in schools and items in the House-passed bill, the "Protecting Our Kids Act," which includes the prohibition of the sale or transfer of semi-automatic firearms to people aged under 21, a federal statutory framework to regulate ghost guns and new federal criminal offenses for gun trafficking, were met with widespread opposition by the GOP.

So it would seem that bipartisan also means the bill with the least resistance to pass--which also means that the parts that are not terribly helpful. For instance, arming teachers or putting armed guards in schools will be seen as wins by gun lovers, but another loss of freedom for school kids. And this is what frustrates the public, our leaders have power, and choose to use it to address the periphery, but not the problem of too many guns in the hands of people who believe they are justified in using them. This is the elephant in the room and it isn't leaving.