Download PDF of this full issue: v20n1.pdf (10.6 MB)

Supreme Court "Justice"

By Pete Zastrow

Justice for Just Us Rich
By Pete Zastrow, VVAW National Office

Of the many rotten legacies left to us by Ronald Reagan, the U.S. Supreme Court may still prove to be the nastiest. In the past several months, the Court—now under the direction of Reagan appointees or sympathizers—has clobbered Black Americans looking for justice under the law, smacked down women hoping to have control of their own bodies—and has given us the wholly irrelevant "right to burn the American flag.

In the elections of 1960 and 1984, many progressive commentators pointed out that Ronald Reagan's supposedly conservative politics would not make all that big a difference from the politics of his opponent for the presidency. We would still support a bloated Pentagon, squander money on silly projects of the Defense Department, and do all the government could to keep the wealthy rich—and the poor even poorer.

The most perceptive of these commentators, however, did make one important point: a Reagan presidency would probably mean a shift in the Supreme Court since so many of the members were aging, and the result could be devastating. They were right.

A series of decisions have attacked the rights of minorities to use the courts to right various wrongs; in June, the court issued an opinion stating that employees who were the victims of discrimination could no longer sue employers under an 1966 Civil Rights Law. A program setting aside a percent of city contracts for minorities was ruled unconstitutional; statistical evidence of discrimination was ruled inadmissible in another case; white fire fighters in Birmingham, Alabama, were given the ability to sue over "reverse discrimination" in a case which could mean years of law suits in cities which have voluntarily desegregated, and which could tie up affirmative action programs for decades.

In the most publicized of backward decisions, the Court upheld a law in Missouri which essentially restricts the rights of a woman to have an abortion if that is her choice. Adding to its attacks on minorities, the Court attacked the freedom of women.

The Court did not overturn Wade vs Roe, the landmark case which recognized that women must have the legal right to control their own bodies. The Court did not overturn the many civil rights cases giving minorities the rights to use the legal system to fight for equality; the attack is more subtle than that. Instead of making a clear statement the Court seems intent on chipping away, piece by piece, at the gains made by minorities and by women over the past thirty years.

The Court's decision in the Missouri case demonstrates how the Reagan Court is operating. Setting aside all the complex legalities and fuzzy moralities, the question is basic: shall a pregnant woman have the right to control what goes on inside her own body? For a majority of the American people (as high as 66% depending on which poll) the answer is that abortions should be available when a woman decides that is what she wants.

A barrage of stories about the child abuse, about babies abandoned in churches or on street corners, about children having children, about children trying to grow up in wretched circumstances—all of these stories are pleas for the rights of a woman to decide whether or not to have a child. The hypocrisy of the so-called "right to lifers" who proclaim the rights of the "unborn" but will not support aid to welfare mothers or childcare for the poor or a whole array of programs designed to help young and poor mothers, this too speaks eloquently for the need of a woman to be able to decide for herself what is best.

No spokesperson for the "pro-choice" movement has ever said that any individual should have an abortion. As proponents of choice they believe individuals should make their own decisions. Only the anti-abortion forces feel they have been awarded the right to decide for others what they should do.

The media says that the Supreme Court has not overturned Wade vs Roe, the landmark case that allowed women to decide what should happen to them. And the media is correct; the Court is whittling away at the decision, not overturning it. The government—and the Supreme Court—are well aware of the outburst of anger that would erupt should the right of abortion be stolen from women. Far better, they believe, to take away a little at a time and the outcry will be less, the media—even the most progressive members of the media—will concentrate on all the rights which are still available, and piece by piece women's rights will be eroded and erased.

Students of American history will recall that the U.S. Senate was designed by the ruling elite of that period to curb the excesses of the House of Representatives; since the House was elected every two years, members were far more likely to be affected by the wishes of their constituents; Senators elected only every six years were further removed from the wishes or whims of the electorate. The Supreme Court was much further removed; there was no recourse for their decisions and to replace lifetime appointed justices was—and is—nearly impossible. Exposing themselves to a group of tourists along the Capitol Mall would be needed before Supreme Court justices could not be replaced.

As a result the Court can operate in a realm divorced from a real world. Justices do not have to think about or see the children of poor women born because there is no alternative. A majority of Supreme Court justices do not have to conform minority workers wanting to keep their jobs or trying to make up for years of neglect. According to the system, in another 20 or so years, the Court will again reflect the wishes of the people: how many unwanted children will die first? How many minorities will be unable to work?

Many forces will be at work to deny the Supreme Court decisions. No one can possibly believe that when the Supreme Court overturns the rights of women to abortion, abortions will stop—they didn't stop before they were "legal" because legality is not so important when abortion is a necessity Perhaps enough pressure can be brought to keep the Court from the final decision; perhaps minorities will keep up the support for the cause that will allow them ti triumph despite Court decisions.

Huge demonstrations have taken place already'; there will certainly be more. Even though the Court is supposedly immune to such public outcry, we must keep trying. In the long run we know that progressive forces will win, that women will be free and that minorities will be able to realize equality; all we can do is to fight to make that happen as quickly as possible.

But the Court did leave us something from their 1989 term: flag-burning has been declared legal! So outraged are various representatives that a flag amendment is well on the way to passage (debate still burns about whether a law will be adequate for whether an full-fledged constitutional amendment will be needed to protect the flag from rabble-rousers and ne'er-do-well's). A flag has a better chance of protection from the present congress than do women or minorities.

Perhaps the eruption of silliness that greeted the flag decision will pass over and be forgotten. It's difficult to watch our tax dollars spent on Congressmen and women who can find their undying devotion to the American flag. Once their breasts are sufficiently beaten, maybe they will be able to turn their attention to women and minorities who need their help.