This week in Scotusland

The Supreme Court confused me this week.  Not being a lawyer, I can't always follow the nuances of precedent and hair-splitting that goes on.  I pretty much go with what I understand to be "right" and then try to figure out whether we are progressing--or falling deeper into the black hole capitalistic fascism known as oligarchy.

Too much?  Ah, well.  My nuance button short-circuited with the Orlando murders.  That was too much for me to stand still for.

And speaking of which--one small step forward on gun control:  Voisine v. the United States expanded and/or clarified (can't tell which) the definition of reckless domestic violence so that persons convicted of such crimes are no longer eligible to purchase guns.  Not sure whether the Orlando shooter's domestic violence record would have prevented him from from purchasing guns had this ruling been in place before June 13, but the ruling will certainly help keep guns out of the hands of a few more people whose anger needs more management.

More press coverage went to the ruling on Texas' attempts to end legal abortion in this state with increasingly onerous (and medically unnecessary) requirements (link includes full text of ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt).  The implications of this ruling--against the State of Texas and for women's health, including the choice to end a pregnancy--will have repercussions in other states on these sorts of restrictions.  It won't end the culture war that surrounds a woman's right to control her own body without the interference of a third party.  Muslims (just for a commonly evident example) seek to begin their control of women's bodies on the outside with the requirement to veil.  Americans (dare I say Christians?) are more subtle, allowing the illusion of freedom and self-control in clothing choices (for now) while digging deeper to take over control of the essential female role of reproduction--making it pretty much mandatory every time a sperm can reach an ovum.  Rape, incest, pre-marital sex, marital rape--not important.  What is important is that sperm+ovum=government takeover for whatever uterus happens to be present.  (Well, I'm about to rant.  This is not my point today.  Deep breaths.)  I am personally long removed from this particular battleground--and yet I know it well.  This war isn't over.  More's the pity that we have to keep fighting the battles again and again when there are, frankly, bigger threats to the human race* than a medically safe procedure that some women choose to have for important personal reasons and others don't, also for important personal reasons.

One might think:  "So far so good" for this week's rulings.  What's the problem?  Look at McDonnell V. United States.  In a unanimous ruling, the eight-member Court vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for bribery.  The Court agreed that he took the [bribery] money and did some favors (set up meetings) for the CEO of Star Scientific, but that he did nothing official to benefit the company.  Huh?  Take the money, make connections, and then walk out the room--nothing to see here?  $167K is a lot of "nothing"--unless making those connections was "something."  Isn't this what lobbyists do for their clients?  Setting up meetings with decision makers, shining the glow of one's credibility over the meeting, encouraging through that credibility the use of that meeting for some purpose beneficial to the client?  Surely all those lunches weren't held because the chicken salad was good.  Just saying.

I'm old enough to understand that some weeks we win, in others we lose.  In the grand scheme of history, we are winning--climbing down from the trees, walking away from cannibalism and some gross forms of brutality.  We wear clothes, bathe sometimes, use language in place of weapons (sometimes).  What I would like to see is some moral progress.  Or at least some clarification--in progressive steps--that we are making the world a better place.  Let me try:

• We say that ethics begins with a choice.  We are committed to that.
• In Voisine we see the Court saying that recklessness doesn't just happen--one chooses to be reckless.  Taking a gun in your hand and then acting recklessly is choosing to act in a way that endangers others whether or not you intend to cause harm.  From my perspective, this sets a standard for gun owners that should be inherent in gun ownership and use whether or not domestic violence is at issue.  
• In Whole Women's Health, "choice" has another layer of meaning, but the Court's ruling maintains the notion that the law allows women to choose how to manage their bodies--including their uteri--and that other laws should not be made to prevent that choice by reducing access to means to exercise that choice.  (Would that they had done that in Hobby Lobby, but I digress.)  
• In McDonnell, the choice to accept [bribe] money was held as neutral.  It would have become criminal only with a subsequent action that was criminal--or something like that.  I'm not so happy with this outcome, because I think it will have the practical effect of adding more money to the executive side of government when there is already too much money in politics.  It does that because the brake of conscience that exists when one is concerned as much about the appearance of impropriety as the impropriety itself is removed.  If money+action is illegal, how do we allow money and still monitor for the actions that make that money illegal?  If money without action is legal, then why disclose (or monitor) the money? It's all a bit above my knowledge level, but my gut says that this kind of choice will be dangerous for the republic.

Yeah, we win some, we lose some.  Progress is hard to see close up.

---------------
*It's the action, not the location, that I see as imperiling us.  Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa in my lifetime; Europe and the rest of Asia in living memory.