After a long hiatus from posting on this blog, I am back. While away, I have been working on a new book with the working title Antiracist Spirituality in which I discuss how using the lens of antiracism in our spiritual practices such as prayer, contemplation, bible reading, worship and the like, we can be better empowered and equipped to challenge the systems of white supremacy in our society. But more on that later.

In this entry I want to comment on some of the more egregious decisions recently made by the Supreme Court of the United States (from here on referred to as SCOTUS). When then-former President Trump nominated and Congress approved the appointments of Judges Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett to the court, all expectations were that SCOTUS would take a clear turn to the Right on several critical issues, including a woman’s right to an abortion. The court did just that, and since then states have been in heated battles over changing laws around abortion. Those battles continue.

What concerns me is not simply that SCOTUS has taken a far more conservative turn – which was to be expected – but also how they seem to be completely oblivious to the consequences of their decisions on the people most directly affected. For instance, I think of a woman living in Texas named Kate Cox who was denied the right to have an abortion, even though the fetus she was carrying was not going to be able to survive to birth, and though not having an abortion posed a significant health risk to Cox herself. While the case was decided by the Texas Supreme Court and not SCOTUS, the issue would not have even gotten to court were it not for the SCOTUS abortion decision. Fortunately, Cox was able to get an abortion out of state, but not all women in Texas can get an out-of-state abortion. Despite the conservative media stereotypes many abortions fall into the same life-threatening category as Cox’s, but SCOTUS did not consider that.

In this recent term, SCOTUS continued its “devil-may-care” approach to decision-making. Let me offer three examples.

The first is the decision to overturn the 2017 decision by the Trump administration to ban bump stocks on rifles. A bump stock is an attachment that can be put on an ordinary hunting rifle and turn it into a rapid-fire machine gun. The infamous mass shooter who killed 58 people at an outdoor in Las Vegas used 12 rifles with bum stock on them to carry out his hideous act. In an age when mass shootings in schools, shopping malls, and large public gatherings like the Las Vegas concert are at pandemic levels, it is irresponsible to allow such deadly devices to be legalized.

A second example is a decision that allows towns and cities to arrest homeless people for sleeping outside in public spaces  – even when the municipality does not have enough shelter space for unhoused persons to go. No one chooses to make their home under a bridge or in a public park. Moreover, a large percentage of homeless people suffer from other issues such as mental illness and addiction. To criminalize them is to deny them the decency and dignity as human beings and fail to offer them the assistance they actually need. When I learned of this decision, I wanted to demand all the justices spend a week on the street, sleeping in the parks or under a bridge, and then revisit that decision.

Finally, there was the decision by SCOTUS that grants the U.S. President “broad immunity” (though not total immunity) from otherwise criminal behavior when they are in office. The case was brought by former president Trump attempting to free himself from having to stand trial for his role in the January 6, 2021 uprising against the U.S. Congress. If calling for your own Vice President to be lynched and cheering on the hundreds of insurrectionists is not able to be litigated, well what is? Whatever happened to “no one is above the law?” Trump has been outspoken about his desire to go after political rivals if he is re-elected President. Again, the justices who voted for this immunity (6 of 9), did not consider the consequences and implications of their decision. I wonder, what kind of checks and balances will SCOTUS be able to exercise in the years to come with a ruling like that?

I am reminded of the many times in the gospels when Jesus challenged the SCOTUS of his day, the Pharisees and Sadducees. They often accused Jesus of encouraging law-breaking when he healed someone on the Sabbath or spent time with people like beggars and lepers who were considered unclean. Jesus at one point said: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” In other words,  – Pharisees and Teachers of the Law, you’ve got it backward. The law should protect, enhance, and empower people, not criminalize them. SCOTUS was created to interpret the laws of the day for specific situations. That is no small feat. But to do so without also considering the consequences of their decisions is not only irresponsible, its criminal. 

That’s the message SCOTUS needs to hear but seems deaf and blind to the consequences of its decisions. The three justices who did not vote for these decisions – Kegan, Sotomayor and Jackson – called out their colleagues on these issues; We need to speak up as well.