Pros and Cons of the New Supreme Court

While I applaud the efforts to block Kavanaugh from joining the Court, I can’t help but feel that particular pooch was screwed a long time ago. To mix metaphors horribly: the ship of judicial extremism has sailed, the horse of market fundamentalism has left the barn. There isn’t even a barn anymore — it’s now a big box store.

I keep thinking of this dude I met when I was in Wisconsin in September of 2016. He was determined to vote for Jill Stein to “send a message.” I pleaded with him for half an hour, citing the Supreme Court over and over, but in the end he seemed unconvinced. Roe was a stake, and nobody seemed to care.

If you want to feel alarmed, read this Daily Kos diary about Kavanaugh and the environment, and this NYT column about the Court’s evisceration of voting rights. This ThinkProgress post about voting rights is also good.


  • Benjamin Schwab

    Sarcasim: Of course the under Obama administration access to abortion had been greatly expanded.

    I have a hard time reconciling harsh criticism of policies supported by democrats (eg. the program of extra-judicial killings) with enthusiastic support of those democrats. I care a lot more about policy then I care about what team wins. I acknowledge that there is a tension between short term impact on policy and long term impact on policy. I seek to effect the long term impact more then the short term impact when I vote but I respect others who make a different judgement then I do.

    I respect those who vote for “the lessor of two evils,” though I still criticize this behavior. I will support the notion that that behavior does more long term damage then the short term damage avoided by said behavior. As with anything that has such impacts life and death should be expected to, such discussions can raise high emotions.

    I recognize there is a difference between the intended results of someone’s actions and the practical effect of someone’s actions and I have tried not to claim that supporters of the democratic party prefer conservative policy. It is clear to me that those who I have engaged with have not always afforded me the same courtesy though I will acknowledge that not all left-wing detractors of the democratic party would appropriately appreciate such nuance.

    I can sympathize with spending a lot of effort to try and communicate with people who have no interest in honest engagement. The statement “Roe was a stake, and nobody seemed to care,” is revealing. If I am misinterpreting this statement then I apologize for my error but I take exception to the statement that since I voted for Mimi Soltysik instead of Hillary Clinton then I must not care about what the Supreme Court does. Such a sentiment betrays a lack of understanding and respect.

    Respect is important for honest engagement. Impugning somebody’s motives when the issue is a disagreement about what the results of an action will be or disagreement about values such as how one weighs long term or short term results is showing disrespect and making honest engagement impossible.

    It seams that it is difficult to engage in conversations with anyone outside one’s own narrow political perspective. The gulf is so wide that it is even difficult for those with the same goals but who favor different strategies to talk with one another. Despite this obvious difficulty, it is possible for two such widely different people to have a respectful honest engagement with one another.

    If I understand your attitude correctly (and I acknowledge that I might not) then I would encourage you to look at the basic assumptions you are making about us others and what biases that you bring when you try and engage with one of us. If you insist that the stereotypes you have made about us have to be true then you should expect to get nowhere even after pleading for half an hour.

Jen Sorensen is a nationally-published political cartoonist. She is a 2017 Pulitzer Finalist and recipient of the 2014 Herblock Prize and a 2013 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award.