Warning: Bad words ahead. Mostly in Russian, a little in English, and all protected under the First Amendment.
By Alisha Giampola (Actor)
You can't turn around on the internet this week without bumping into another opinon piece on Monday's SCOTUS ruling. And there should be- when a case gets all the way to the Supreme Court, a lot of people must think it's pretty important, right?
But don't worry, I'm not going to add to the shouting match. At least, I don't intend to. That's not to say that I don't have an opinion on Monday's ruling. I very much do, I certainly do. This week I've learned that there are people in this world who don't understand the difference between emergency contraception and abortion (not to mention all the ways in which contraception reduces abortions), and that there are people who think that corporations should be afforded the freedoms our constitution previously only allowed for individuals, and that there are also people for whom "religious freedom" means: "only religious freedom for one specific religion and also we get to impose our beliefs on you even though we are not an actual religious institution of any kind but are in fact a big-business craft-store chain."
Justice Ginsburg makes the point I'd like to make, but much better, in her dissent: “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." SCOTUS was split 5-4, boys vs. mostly girls, in this ruling. Which brings up lots of thoughts on men making decisions for women's bodies and I just can't even start with that because I know you don't have all day. But what this ruling also made me think about was the question of term limits for Supreme Court justices.
We currently have justices on the highest court in our land who are willing to accept some fuzzy-science ideas about birth control, and who also don't understand even the most basic modern computer and software technology; to the extent that we should be concerned about their ability to rule effectively on it. I'm not trying to be ageist here. There are lots of science-accepting and tech-savvy senior citizens out there. But it doesn't appear that many of the members of our Supreme Court are currently among them (probably RBG aside).