Interpreting the Constitution is not supposed to be an easy task, which is why justices of the Supreme Court are chosen with special attention given to their training, experience and expertise.
In our polarized world, as we shall see, another consideration has crept into the public mind: their political beliefs. Let’s take a brief look at two recent decisions: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard et al.
In Dobbs, the six conservative-leaning justices decided that, even after 50 years of being the law of the land, Roe was a bad decision. Their decision was that the right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment did not give women autonomy over their own bodies and, therefore, did not give them a nationally guaranteed right to an abortion.
In the second case, the justices decided that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment did not support the use of race-based affirmative action to help Blacks get into prestigious colleges like Harvard, despite their previous history of oppression.
To support their reasoning in these cases, five of those six justices in question cited their “originalist” views of constitutional interpretation. Very briefly, this approach attempts to view the Constitution from the standpoint of the Framers and their contemporaries rather than the “untutored” standpoint of today’s readers. This approach may have the veneer of professionalism, but is it just a coincidence that the end result categorizes women and Blacks where current “Make America Great Again” Republicans seem to want them: as second-class citizens?
Justice Sonia Sotomayer, in reference to the Dobbs decision, neatly sums it up: “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception, that the Constitution and its reading are just politicized acts?”
Julia Sperry
Hockessin
