Very well said. Previously, I was on the fence about substantial SC reform, but now I'm in favor of term limits and/or expansion of the court. We've seen the damage that the SC has caused in past and now, in the present. I really don't want to see this damage in the future.
A "careless and uninterested" majority on the Supreme Court -- that is indeed terrifying. And it explains a great deal. Thank you for yet another insightful essay that took a turn I was never expecting.
It is evident, as Ms. Ifill so aptly notes, that this court is not capable of an opinion more meaningful than this, because they don’t have the “imaginative capacity”, which to me means the world-view, perspective or context to truly understand what they are saying, what their position will mean for the masses or the ramifications of this decision. It seems this is the result of individuals who have never lived a life touched by disability, race, gender, poverty or exclusion, etc., who thus don’t “get it” for they have no context for “it” at all. Such seems the case of Amy Coney Barrett, and her colleagues in this crime, writing this law school paper from a privileged on-high perspective. Perhaps the men had her write the opinion knowing her view is so narrow and unseeing, using her for cover to hide their own ignorance and culpability. Shame on all of them.
Trump and the conservative Supreme Court Justices are like-minded. Justice Barrett fulfilled Trump's expectations. In his justification, Trump controversially claimed that birthright citizenship was “only about the babies of slaves.” Conversely, America showed little concern for enslaved babies, and it appears that hasn’t changed today, as evidenced by the Senate passing the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which takes food from the mouths of babes.
You’re absolutely right, Sherrilyn, regarding the Reconstruction Supreme Court between 1873 and 1896. As with the Slaughterhouse cases, which weakened the civil rights protections for Black people, the intent of the Court today in the matter of Trump v. Casa virtually did the same thing.
On July 7, 2025, the "Washington Examiner" reported that the DOJ is implementing Trump's directives and aims to ensure they remain in place permanently after 2028.
Thank you, Sherrilyn, for speaking truth to power. We all need to summon our courage (corragio- acting from the heart) to face what's ahead and work to take back our Supreme Court, our government "by the people for the people" and our country.
Very well said. Previously, I was on the fence about substantial SC reform, but now I'm in favor of term limits and/or expansion of the court. We've seen the damage that the SC has caused in past and now, in the present. I really don't want to see this damage in the future.
A "careless and uninterested" majority on the Supreme Court -- that is indeed terrifying. And it explains a great deal. Thank you for yet another insightful essay that took a turn I was never expecting.
Thank you for this hard and painful truth.
Difficult to face but facing it is the beginning of changing it.
Enid, so profoundly stated.
Ms. Ifill,
I do hope we can navigate these dangerous times and emerge with the commitment to a diverse. Inclusive, equitable American truth.
Shall we take a small step and correct the use of Conservative. It masks their truth: extremist, violent, cruel.
I feel that now, it is time to start a Prayer Train. The devil is extremely busy. We must ALL stay woke.
It is evident, as Ms. Ifill so aptly notes, that this court is not capable of an opinion more meaningful than this, because they don’t have the “imaginative capacity”, which to me means the world-view, perspective or context to truly understand what they are saying, what their position will mean for the masses or the ramifications of this decision. It seems this is the result of individuals who have never lived a life touched by disability, race, gender, poverty or exclusion, etc., who thus don’t “get it” for they have no context for “it” at all. Such seems the case of Amy Coney Barrett, and her colleagues in this crime, writing this law school paper from a privileged on-high perspective. Perhaps the men had her write the opinion knowing her view is so narrow and unseeing, using her for cover to hide their own ignorance and culpability. Shame on all of them.
Trump and the conservative Supreme Court Justices are like-minded. Justice Barrett fulfilled Trump's expectations. In his justification, Trump controversially claimed that birthright citizenship was “only about the babies of slaves.” Conversely, America showed little concern for enslaved babies, and it appears that hasn’t changed today, as evidenced by the Senate passing the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which takes food from the mouths of babes.
You’re absolutely right, Sherrilyn, regarding the Reconstruction Supreme Court between 1873 and 1896. As with the Slaughterhouse cases, which weakened the civil rights protections for Black people, the intent of the Court today in the matter of Trump v. Casa virtually did the same thing.
On July 7, 2025, the "Washington Examiner" reported that the DOJ is implementing Trump's directives and aims to ensure they remain in place permanently after 2028.
Please see "Harmeet Dhillon: Civil rights being rebuilt after ‘cultural shift’ under Trump" at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3463289/harmeet-dhillon-civil-rights-division-rebuilt-cultural-shift-trump/.
Thank you, Sherrilyn, for speaking truth to power. We all need to summon our courage (corragio- acting from the heart) to face what's ahead and work to take back our Supreme Court, our government "by the people for the people" and our country.