Worse Than Dred Scott

 

     One would have to go back 167 years to find a worse Supreme Court decision than the one handed down yesterday. That would, arguably, be the Dred Scott v Sandford ruling from 1857. That ruling, often cited as the worst Supreme Court decision ever, was the one that kept slavery on the books for another eight years, denied citizenship and self-determination to African Americans, made a mockery of the right wing fetish for "states' rights", even more bitterly divided an already divided nation and is widely regarded as one of the major events that helped bring about a Civil War that would claim 600,000 American lives.

     The majority opinion was written by one Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the scion of a slave-owning family from Maryland and a slave owner himself. Taney by this time was just a week and a half shy of his 80th birthday and plainly past his shelf life. Taney's basis for denying Dred Scott his freedom after he'd fled slavery and moved to the free Wisconsin Territory was that since white men, slave-owners like him hadn't given Scott citizenship he was not entitled to seek his freedom. The Scott decision ended the Missouri Compromise, even though it had already been put out to pasture by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

     Taney's legal reasoning was so flawed it's amazing he was able to get six other justices to side with him. And the 7-2 ruling was the worst consensus the court had ever reached.

     Until yesterday.

     I've been saying for years now that the only reason Trump ran for reelection four years ago and the only reason he's seeking it now is so it can give him the immunity of the presidency.

     But yesterday's nightmarish ruling means he doesn't need that anymore. That's because he already has near unlimited immunity.

     And Taney's ideological descendant, John Roberts, also wrote the majority opinion that was so divorced from common sense, case law and precedent so as to veer into the world of speculative fiction. And, as if spearheading this decision wasn't bad enough, he even snarkily referred to Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in such a way as to say, "Don't get so emotional, ladies."

     It was arrogant, white male privilege on anabolic steroids.

     Being the entitled asshole that he is, Trump couldn't wait to thank "his" Supreme Court (One suspects he already had an alternate Truth Social post ready to go excoriating the High Court for not giving him the blanket immunity for past, present and future offenses to which he feels is his due).

     Naturally, being the simple-minded manchild he is, Trump the quivering pus bag interpreted this equally simple-minded Supreme Court ruling to mean he gets a blanket Get of Jail Free card for all crimes he committed before taking office, while in office and any future crimes he'll commit if, God Forbid, he gets elected in four months.

     It's not, really, unconditional blanket immunity. But Roberts did stipulate that it's entirely up to the president to decide and declare what are personal acts vs official acts. And to Trump, naturally, that means he can whip out the official act card every time he commits, or is about to commit, a crime. Basically, what Roberts and the other right wingers on the court decided was that the president and the president alone can police himself, without any meaningful judicial oversight.

     As I predicted last night, President Joe Biden isn't interested in these new theoretical powers invested in him by the High Court because, 81 years-old or no, Biden is capable of seeing the dangerous precedent this presents that threatens democracy itself.

     Trump sees that, too, except he doesn't see it as a danger but a shiny new toy, the latest thing from FAO Schwartz, that he can't wait to take out for a test spin.