The field of law and the study of law is complicated, to say the least. The execution of and the enforcement of law can get to be a contentious event. However, the defining and interpreting of law, especially law which affects an entire nation – that, my friends is a formidable task indeed. Such is the role of the Supreme Court. It is the final arbiter of questions and controversies regarding law and particularly law under the Constitution.The current U S Supreme Court (SCOTUS ) is an interesting cadre of legal minds and it poses a likewise interesting posture when it comes to decisions. Of late, many, if not most of the decisions were a 5-4 split and the composition of this Court is a key as to why this is the case.

The Court is composed of nine justices and the Roberts Court is , as many see it,composed of two quite opposite philosophical camps, in my opinion, it is controlled by a hard line  neocon approach to matters. In this writer’s opinion, the collective mind of the Court has sacrificed the temper of the times in deference to a hard line, narrowly defined, seriously myopic interpretation of current issues. One should not, I further hold, attempt to interpret law outside of social context.
Of  late, the Court has made, in the social context of today, nothing short of disastrous decisions which unless overturned by legislative action on the part of Congress, will be wreaking havoc for decades to come.
Case in point – the now infamous “Citizens United vs the Federal Elections Commission and its corollary decision “McCutcheon vs Federal Elections Commission . These two decisions held that corporations could spend unlimited funds to support or defeat political candidates. In essence, it put elections up for sale. With some other rulings regarding PACs, etc. much of these so called donations can go unreported as to source. Under the guise of free speech, it would allow certain corporate interests to flood the market to elect candidates which support their own agenda, i.e. enhancement of profit margins. Pair that with the unchecked gerrymandering and elections now are virtually out of the hands of the electorate and in the hands of the corporate moguls. A prime example is, for the upcoming 2014 mid term elections, Charles and David Koch, have pledged over three hundred million dollars to advance their agenda by influencing elections. In a scene from an episode of “Sex and the City”, the girls are debating whether or not Carrie should take a loan from Big so she can buy her apartment. Miranda responds in what is so timely in this discussion. “ If a man gives you money, he controls you”. Think of it – if corporations get a candidate elected, they do not in fact control that candidate ! One must ask the question, is democracy dead ?Again we saw how the Court failed to be in touch with current realities in the case of Shelby County vs Holder. Prior to this decision, there were nine states which, because of their long history of discrimination and election rigging, were required to seek prior approval from the Justice Department before making any changes to their election processes which included their redistricting plans. In Shelby vs Holder, the Court ruled that while discrimination probably still existed in election processes, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was outdated and a new law reflecting more modern concerns should be enacted. Therefore the Court repealed that portion of the VRA ! They were willing to allow discrimination to continue because the wording of protections against it were “outdated” ! REALLY !!! Did Chief Justice Roberts really think he would get this Congress to do anything, let alone pass legislation which would address corruption in the election process. Within the hour of handing down this catastrophic decision, Texas and North Carolina both enacted their shameless, discriminatory voter suppression laws. In Texas, by virtue of their new redistricting, entire voting districts which were predominantly democratic in registration were summarily eliminated and reconfigured in to sub district wards. In North Carolina, student ID’s issued by state universities were no longer valid under their new photo ID voter laws and thousands of students as well as seniors who do not have the required photo IDs will be forced out of the polls come election day.

Then there is the most recent and what might be the most insidious decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. In the case of “Sebelius vs Hobby Lobby” the Court said that, in effect, a private corporation ( in this case, a family owned corporation ) can force employees to adhere to the religious beliefs of its CEO. OK, that’s rather simply put, but it is indeed the proverbial bottom line of the decision. The CEO in this case, a Southern Baptist and hard line fundamentalist, did not believe, under freedom of religion, that he should have to pay for insurance that covered certain contraception methods included under the Affordable Care Act. The Court agreed and , again, under the notion of freedom of religion, sided with the Hobby Lobby corporation and its key ally in this, the Beckett Fund for Religious Freedom. My conspiracy sense is telling me that, along with the Beckett Fund, someone with a far larger agenda pushed Hobby Lobby to this challenge. As we are all or should be well aware , the GOP and their neocon right wing allies have been trying to destroy the ACA since 2010. That being said, how utterly shortsighted this decision was will only be measured over time as more and more corporations will decide that their so called religious beliefs, conveniently invoked as they usually are, are not consistent with whatever law in current. Can one imagine if, say, The Gun Shop, a well know firearms store in Arizona, decided that it would not sell any weapons to African Americans because it offended their religious beliefs. Or if Outback Steak House felt it offended their religious beliefs to serve Hindu customers. Sounds ridiculous, yes, but it is decidedly exactly where this decision is headed. In fact, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, there has already been at least one request from the Chief Executive of Catholic Charities USA to provide for “religious exemptions” to the upcoming executive order banning discrimination against members of the LGBT community by federal contractors. Contrary to Mitt Romney’s pathetic assertions, corporations are not people and if this decision stands, it could get beyond sanity. This is not about religious freedom. If it were, it would not allow Southern Baptists or Catholics or anyone to impose their religious agenda on their employees – unless, of course they only hired members of that religious denomination.

All this points back to the issue of law, its interpretations and something which I contend has been lost especially by the Roberts Court, the understanding of law in social context.  One must ask whether or not the Roberts Court really believed that discrimination was a thing of the past, especially in the deep South . One must ask if the Roberts Court did not see the long term ramifications of ruling that a corporate CEO can determine insurance coverage based on his or her own religious beliefs. There are various definitions of the term “law” but the one I find appealing is that law “…. is a system of rules that a country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members..”. If one accepts that definition, one also is obliged to accept the idea that in order to be relevant to the country or community, law must be made relevant by being configured in context of that community. As far back as one can delve, laws were created to protect members of a community, or country as the case may be and preserve some semblance of order – freedom from chaos, as it were. There have been some mistakes. Prohibition under the Eighteenth Amendment was such. It was corrected by the Twenty-first Amendment. It was legislated out of context and it was finally corrected, albeit thirteen years later. One has to hope that the recent decisions by the Supreme Court do not take that long to be corrected. The consequences are far too compelling to allow that much time to pass before at least these three colossal mistakes are corrected.