Has the Supreme Court Become Dishonest and Untrustworthy? One of Its Members Thinks So.

 Happy Fourth of July weekend, and happy birthday to the United States of America, a wonderful country that, despite its problems, offers so much, including a legal system that insures that laws are followed and everything is fair. But more and more, trust in the most important part of that system, one of the basic foundations on which this great nation rests, is being eroded. The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be the final neutral arbiter of what is and what is not legal, but more and more the 5 person conservative majority on the court is undermining trust in the nation’s highest court, and ultimately the very fairness of how America works, by appearing to decide cases based on their personal ideology rather than an objective consideration of the law.

Just Thursday, and to little notice compared to the high profile ruling earlier in the week in the Hobby Lobby case, the court seemed to say that non-profit institutions have the right to impose their religious views on their employees, specifically in this case Christian opposition to contraception and abortion. (Read the ruling itself here.) There is one big and SCARY difference between this ruling and Hobby Lobby, and it raises serious questions about whether the conservative majority is honestly following the law, or dishonestly finding ways to impose their personal ideologies on how America works.

In Hobby Lobby the court said the owners of privately held companies don’t have to pay for insurance coverage for contraception for their workers…since that would violate the religious views and freedom of those owners. But the court respected the religious freedom of workers by providing a way they might still get coverage. The owners of the company just have to fill out some paperwork that says “Our religious views oppose contraception so we don’t want to contribute to insurance that pays for contraception for our workers”, and the company gets out of paying for contraceptive coverage, but the form then helps workers get coverage from the government. This exemption is expressly granted in the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obama Care), as a way to recognize people’s different religious views.

But in Wheaton College v Sylvia Burwell (Wheaton is a Protestant-based school in Illinois. Burwell is Secretary of Health and Human Services), the religious views of the organization, at least when it comes to opposition to contraception, win outright. The court said the organization can opt out of paying for contraception coverage AND that it does NOT have to apply for the exemption that would help workers get coverage from the government. Wheaton feels it has to fight contraception however it can, so signing the form saying “We don’t want to pay” is not enough.

Wheaton's workers can still try to get government coverage, but it’s much harder and involves more bureaucracy, paperwork, and time. So while this ruling fully respects the religious views of the organization, it clearly does not equally respect the views and religious freedom of the female worker.

The ruling is not final. It merely granted an injunction, a freeze on what Wheaton College is required to do while the school argues these fuller issues in a case now making its way up the appeals court system. But the basis of the ruling is clear. At least when it comes to the moral issue of contraception, which Christians oppose because it feels like abortion (even though there is nothing yet to abort), the U.S. Supreme Court says the owners' anti-contraception First Amendment religious views win and the workers First Amendment freedom of religion rights lose.

This is about much more than the fight over contraception, or abortion, or whether you are a conservative or a liberal and like or dislike any of the Court’s specific decisions. This is about the honesty of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and therefore trust in this important institution. The court used one line of thinking in one ruling, and then tossed it out in the next, allowing the majority to move toward more conservative values. Don’t take it from me that this is about the fundamental issue of honesty. Take it from three of the Court’s Justices themselves! In a remarkable and scathing dissent, the three women on the court, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Ginsburg said:

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today,” Sotomayor wrote. “After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position.”

That’s a pretty semantic of saying that the majority in this case (the Wheaton ruling was unsigned, although conservative activist judge Antonin Scalia went out of his way to sign that he ‘concurs”.)  is being dishonest. And that means that there is fair reason not to trust the Supreme Court, which in the end only operates with the trust of the public. And don’t take my word for that either.  Justice Sotomayor wrote that the court’s action, “undermines confidence in this institution.”

This is stunning! A Supreme Court Justice is arguing, in essence, that the public has reason to MISTRUST the ultimate arbiters of what is legal in America. In the context of many decisions that neutral legal scholars have called conservative activist interpretations of the law – granting individual rights to gun ownership, upholding the ‘personhood’ of corporations, overturning parts of the Voters Rights Act -  this recent decision is chilling evidence that the Supreme Court has become so ideological that the majority is not honest enough to be trusted as fair and impartial judges of how America is supposed to work.

This is NOT a critique of this ruling, nor of any specific decision. I am no legal scholar, and recognize that many people like the decisions the court has made while many don’t. But NONE of us should like that the supposedly fair final arbiter of the most contentious issues of the day is taking sides, and acting dishonestly in order to do so. And a majority of Americans feel that way. A survey by Rasmussen found that 61% of the public believes that the Justices rule from their own personal ideological agendas rather than on the facts. 

The Supreme Court is losing the only thing it really has to maintain it’s power, the trust of the American public. No mater what side you’re on, if you are patriotic American, that’s scary. The court that was established by the Founding Fathers was expected to be fair and impartial, and honest. That the people no longer believe it is, and that some of its own members share that view, is truly frightening news for our country on this July Fourth holiday.


Befriend your ideological opposite. It’s fun.

Step inside the unlikely friendship of a former ACLU president and an ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice.

Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
  • Former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia were unlikely friends. They debated each other at events all over the world, and because of that developed a deep and rewarding friendship – despite their immense differences.
  • Scalia, a famous conservative, was invited to circles that were not his "home territory", such as the ACLU, to debate his views. Here, Strossen expresses her gratitude and respect for his commitment to the exchange of ideas.
  • "It's really sad that people seem to think that if you disagree with somebody on some issues you can't be mutually respectful, you can't enjoy each other's company, you can't learn from each other and grow in yourself," says Strossen.
  • The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Keep reading Show less

3 ways to find a meaningful job, or find purpose in the job you already have

Learn how to redesign your job for maximum reward.

  • Broaching the question "What is my purpose?" is daunting – it's a grandiose idea, but research can make it a little more approachable if work is where you find your meaning. It turns out you can redesign your job to have maximum purpose.
  • There are 3 ways people find meaning at work, what Aaron Hurst calls the three elevations of impact. About a third of the population finds meaning at an individual level, from seeing the direct impact of their work on other people. Another third of people find their purpose at an organizational level. And the last third of people find meaning at a social level.
  • "What's interesting about these three elevations of impact is they enable us to find meaning in any job if we approach it the right way. And it shows how accessible purpose can be when we take responsibility for it in our work," says Hurst.
Keep reading Show less

Physicist advances a radical theory of gravity

Erik Verlinde has been compared to Einstein for completely rethinking the nature of gravity.

Photo by Willeke Duijvekam
Surprising Science
  • The Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde's hypothesis describes gravity as an "emergent" force not fundamental.
  • The scientist thinks his ideas describe the universe better than existing models, without resorting to "dark matter".
  • While some question his previous papers, Verlinde is reworking his ideas as a full-fledged theory.
Keep reading Show less

UPS has been discreetly using self-driving trucks to deliver cargo

TuSimple, an autonomous trucking company, has also engaged in test programs with the United States Postal Service and Amazon.

PAUL RATJE / Contributor
Technology & Innovation
  • This week, UPS announced that it's working with autonomous trucking startup TuSimple on a pilot project to deliver cargo in Arizona using self-driving trucks.
  • UPS has also acquired a minority stake in TuSimple.
  • TuSimple hopes its trucks will be fully autonomous — without a human driver — by late 2020, though regulatory questions remain.
Keep reading Show less