In recent weeks, we the readers of The Transcript, have been treated to bitter denunciations of the Supreme Court by a regular correspondent.  On the one hand, I share her contempt for many recent actions of the Court.  But on the other, it's other decisions that I object to.  I must say that the correspondent doesn't really see what the Court is up to.  Apparently she’s feeding us regurgitated information and analysis from highly dubious (meaning right wing) sources.  We need to consider other perspectives.

To focus on an anomalous decision like Obergefell (that recognized same-sex marriage) tends to obscure the real purposes of the Roberts Court.  The kneejerk 5-4 majority was put on there precisely to act as a wrecking crew to jurisprudence.  It's their failure to be enough of a wrecking crew that incenses some, including our correspondent.  It should outrage the rest of us that they're a wrecking crew at all.

During his confirmation hearing, John Roberts said he'd be like an impartial umpire calling balls and strikes.  Reality:  he's been very partial.  As self-described conservatives, Roberts and his four cohorts might be expected to exhibit judicial restraint, deferring to the Legislature, respecting precedent, and issuing narrowly-tailored rather than sweeping rulings.  But instead, in pursuing their ideological aims they've shown little restraint, and they've gone out of their way to attack long-standing precedent.  Bottom line:  Their decisions show a consistent favoritism toward the privileged and powerful, and create less-accountable government.  The losers are the rest of us.

Let's look at the specifics:

They've severely weakened the exclusionary rule, the principal disincentive against violations of the Fourth Amendment.

They've made it harder for individuals to have their day in court, thus protecting corporations and the government from the discovery process.  This hostility has filtered down to the lower courts, where more and more plaintiffs are simply told they lack standing (court talk for "none of your business") even when it clearly is their business.

They've cynically used the aspirational goal of a color-blind society to undermine any government action that would remedy discrimination.  They've also weakened civil rights enforcement.

They've gutted the Voting Rights Act, claiming its purposes have been achieved.  Proof that it hasn't:  this gave the green light to states and localities to pass over 180 new laws making it harder to vote.  (Amazingly, these restrictions always hamper likely Democrats ...)

They've made it easier for billionaires to buy elections and own politicians by claiming that money is speech protected by the First Amendment.  This case (Citizens United) took a narrow dispute and gratuitously expanded it to overturn a century of campaign finance laws.  This is Judicial activism.

They've extended the erroneous concept of Corporate Personhood (the Hobby Lobby decision).  So now corporations have religious freedom rights!  These, of course, are whatever the boss believes.  So now the boss has the power to infringe on the supposedly equal rights of his slaves, I mean, employees.

This has led in turn to numerous claims of religious exemption from generally-applicable laws.  We must never let individuals (or corporations) be a law unto themselves, with religion the excuse.

This is just a small sample-- the Roberts Court is far from through with their wrecking operation.  If the next President can further stack the Court with a sixth ideologue, decades of precedents and Acts that protect individual rights and restrain the government will be demolished next.  The damage would likely be permanent.  The result, though unnamed, is Fascism.

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA

Editor’s Note: It would appear, Steven that you agree much more with Kerri’s “Columns” than not. If we were to allocate the space necessary to disseminate trickle down effect of every decision our “Governors” make on our daily lives, there would be no room left for the opinions of others. Letters To Editor are welcome; civility makes them much more sincere.

The parting shot at conservatives by Speaker of the House John Boehner was the nomination of his replacement, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. If Boehner's protégé was meant to thumb his nose at Republican conservatives, he succeeded.

McCarthy, like exiting Speaker Boehner, is a turncoat conservative---Republican oh-hum-red on the outside and Democratic get-along-blue on the inside. But what the country, and the House and the Senate need is not a costumed conservative but a real conservative.

A conservative without the media-bestowed modifiers such as "extreme right," "far right," “arch,” “ultra,” “hard-line,” or "firebrand".

Therein, the media exposes its bias. While modifiers for Democrats are never used, no matter how left-leaning their positions are, Republican conservatives are always tagged with an extremist adjective. To the media, Democrats are never far left but Republican conservatives are always---pick one of the six forenamed adjectives.

But the polls reveal a media this is out-of-step with the public and a RP that is fighting a civil war within its ranks. The poll stats give evidence of the media's and RP's disconnects.

The most recent nationwide polling averages compiled by RealClearPolitics for Republican presidential nominations are Donald Trump, 23 percent; Benjamin Carson, 17 percent; and Carly Fiorina, 11 percent. The remaining 11, including the establishment's favorite, Jeb Bush, are all in the skinny-digit category.

Notice that the average percentage of the top three candidates is 52 percent. The average percentage of the trailing 11 is a lackluster 36 percent. What does this tell us?

Look at what the three front runners have in common. They are all graduates of top-tier schools, they all have outstanding records in their chosen fields, they are all political newcomers, and they are all conservatives.

McCarthy---Boehner's alter ego---lacks these credentials. Even before the election of the heir presumptive to the House Speaker, he made a major misstep. Searching for ways to show the accomplishments of conservatives in the House, McCarthy cited the Republican probe into Benghazi as the reason for Clinton's decline in the polls.

“Everyone thought Clinton was unbeatable,” said McCarthy. “Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had we not fought.”

McCarthy blundered badly. He tainted the Benghazi investigation as what can be inferred to be a Republican ploy against Clinton. It played right into Clinton's defense; the Benghazi probe is just Republican dirty politics. An inauspicious start for McCarthy.

McCarthy cannot escape the same problems that plagued Boehner.

The House Freedom Caucus, composed of between 30 to 60 conservative representatives, don't want a milquetoast Speaker. The caucus wants a Speaker who will fight for Republican causes as zealously as Democrats fight for their causes.

But instead of fire in his belly, McCarthy held his finger in the wind and set his sails to the right.

In the Senate, the Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is equally wobbly.

But the groundswell of support for conservative Republicans might be enough to overcome anemic leadership. If the Republican Party can shake the shackles of timidity, then at some point over some issue we're headed for a toe-to-toe showdown with the Democrats and the threat of a government shutdown.

In the past, the Republicans have always caved. It became de rigueur. The onus of a shutdown was always blamed on the Republicans, never on the Democrats refusal to compromise. This could end. We might even end up with a real two-party system. Imagine that.

Lastly, two questions that have bewildered many: Why did the popularity of Trump, a political nonentity, explode seemingly overnight and why has it remained consistently high?

This writer is reminded of General George Patton. Patton spoke to his troops many times. His speeches were extemporaneous, brash, and laced with profanity. They were an embarrassment to his fellow staff officers, but they reverberated with the average Joe in the ranks.

Trump is like Patton in mufti. His speeches are reminiscent of the “blood and guts” general: extemporaneous, brash, spiced with profanity, and an embarrassment to the political establishment, but they reverberated with the average voter.

“Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time, “ said Patton, or was it Trump?

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA