Supreme Court by Ed Horn

Citizens of the United States have expressed reverence and rage at the Supreme Court from its inception. Chief Justice Marshall established the power of the Court to review, uphold or declare unconstitutional laws passed by the Congress and the office of the President.

Slavery was the obstacle to Southern Delegates in signing the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s “all men are created equal” in the South would be only limited to whites. Blacks were property and not people.

In the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, the Supreme Court upheld slavery and that slaves were property. Yet the Southern States realizing the power of population that created Congressional districts insisted on counting slaves to their benefit when taxes and representation in Congress was an issue.

As a result, slaves were counted for purposes of both representation in Congress and the benefits of receiving federal dollars as three-fifths of a person. Though counted in this manner the compromise did not alter a slave from being more than property owned by a white.

Jefferson and others of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Jefferson owned 600 and freed only 7. George Washington owned 123 slaves and freed less than Jefferson.

The common practice was the white owner would impregnate a slave woman. The child born of the sexual abuse would not be a child of the slave owner, but property. There were some relationships that developed over time with Sally Hemings having 6 children by Jefferson. It is said they maintained a close relationship during Jefferson’s life, yet he did not free her from slavery.

The Civil War which according to the perspective of the North, began over claims of State Rights. With the election of Lincoln, the Southern States believed Lincoln’s election was an inevitable attack on the institution of slavery.

By 1863 with the Emancipation Proclamation, it became clear the War was a contest to resolve the issue of slavery.  The ending of the War did not end slavery as the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision was still the law of the land.

The States passed the 13th & 14th Amendments to the Constitution in 1865 which abolished slavery in the United States. At that time the Southern States were not recognized, negating their participation.

The Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, Justices have always been politically selected by the President and his political party. The decisions of the Court in many cases reflect the political desires of the President and Party that have elevated members to the highest Court in the land.

The Plessy v Ferguson in 1896 decision by the Court found separate and equal did not violate the US Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, thereby permitting segregation to be legal.

The Court reversed the Plessy ruling in 1954 in the Brown v Board of Education decision. In this ruling it rejected separate and equal finding that segregation was a violation of the Constitution.

In the history of the Court, it has proven to be a branch of government not unlike the other two branches. Its history shows politics as a driving force in the decisions it reaches.

Members of the Court have claimed to be guided by precedent, prior ruling that have been examined several times over years and sustained. Nominees to the Court have sworn allegiance to precedent when appearing before the Senate. Yet after confirmation precedent has provided little restraint to political beliefs held by the Justices.

Roe v Wade was the precedent for nearly 50 years and was struck down by conservative white Christian Justices whose ideals were contrary to the freedom Roe granted women in determining their own futures.

It was never imagined that a President could commit a crime and not be subject to prosecution. Washington refused being a King and graciously surrendered power after two terms. It is doubtful any American would have accepted anyone being above the law in the United States until the recent Supreme Court ruling granting extreme presidential immunity.

That ruling guidelines make the requirements to hold a President criminally liable so extreme that it is impractical that the effort would be made to do so.  

The history of the Supreme Court would impose the belief of its certainty and the longevity of its rulings.  Those rulings become “laws of the land” carved in stone. Nothing would be further than the reality.

From the existence of the Court and its establishment as the final arbiter of the  rules that govern the nation, it is notable that the Supreme Court has overturned more than 300 prior decisions. With retirements of Justices and changing of the political Party in power when an appointment is available, there is every reason to believe no current ruling will remain for all time the “law of the land.”