I think people here would benefit from reading the Supreme Court chapter of Michael Parenti's Democracy for the Few. The Supreme Court was always a reactionary institution. Almost all of the "good" rulings like Brown vs The Board of Education and Miranda vs Arizona were ruled from the Warren court, which was a one-in-a-century occurrence that involved the Chief Justice basically hiding his power level when he was nominated by Eisenhower.
These rulings are simply the Supreme Court returning to form as a thoroughly reactionary institution. Because as we all know, the infamous Dred Scott case was ruled in favor of white supremacist slaveowners by the same institution. Parenti lists more rulings that clearly favored the rich and powerful.
Liberals do not know history and do not understand that the Supreme Court, regardless of who the justices are, should be seen as the enemy, not a potential for good. This leads to a tendency that I would style as "courtism," the idea that social change doesn't come from protests or armed struggle or even through participation in electoral politics, but through favorable court rulings. Voting is reduced to a procedural step with the ultimate goal of having an politically advantageous composition of justices. How many times have we heard people say we should vote for Clinton or Biden because of the Supreme Court?
The constitution only exists as a pretext for the reactionary Supreme Court to strike down any victories achieved by the people who are foolish enough to play the bourgeoisie’s game by the bourgeoisie’s rules. You will notice that, in practice, constitutionality is never an impediment to state oppression, and throughout the vast majority of the constitutional republic’s history the Supreme Court has had no issue shit-canning the limited victories of the people by using the most contrived interpretations of its rather simple language imaginable.
Liberals venerate the Supreme Court because for a very short time in its history it rendered decisions like Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade, but if you zoom the camera out a little bit, this short period is a clear aberration to the status quo of busting unions, returning slaves to their masters, and permitting the practice of eugenics and internment.
This leads to a tendency that I would style as “courtism,” the idea that social change doesn’t come from protests or armed struggle or even through participation in electoral politics, but through favorable court rulings.
I think people here would benefit from reading the Supreme Court chapter of Michael Parenti's Democracy for the Few. The Supreme Court was always a reactionary institution. Almost all of the "good" rulings like Brown vs The Board of Education and Miranda vs Arizona were ruled from the Warren court, which was a one-in-a-century occurrence that involved the Chief Justice basically hiding his power level when he was nominated by Eisenhower.
These rulings are simply the Supreme Court returning to form as a thoroughly reactionary institution. Because as we all know, the infamous Dred Scott case was ruled in favor of white supremacist slaveowners by the same institution. Parenti lists more rulings that clearly favored the rich and powerful.
Liberals do not know history and do not understand that the Supreme Court, regardless of who the justices are, should be seen as the enemy, not a potential for good. This leads to a tendency that I would style as "courtism," the idea that social change doesn't come from protests or armed struggle or even through participation in electoral politics, but through favorable court rulings. Voting is reduced to a procedural step with the ultimate goal of having an politically advantageous composition of justices. How many times have we heard people say we should vote for Clinton or Biden because of the Supreme Court?
hmm @PorkrollPosadist must have read that
:fidel-salute:
:sankara-salute:
This. For every admittedly important case on social issues, there are like a dozen that say shit like Nestle can use slave labor.
Isn’t this just common law?