I must be honest: The first image that comes to mind when I hear “Supreme” is Diana Ross and the Supremes, Motown’s divas in the 1960s. I grew into a functioning adult during that decade and even though decades have passed, I still want to dance when I hear the music of the Supremes and later, Diana Ross as solo.

I had a slight mental whiplash – that would be a headache when forced to leave the joy of a happy dance and enter a dark room ruled by people in black robes – when I transitioned to thoughts of the solemn staid purposeful work of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) for this column.

Only now, I wonder how solemn and to what purpose. I never thought of SCOTUS as being messy like democracy or political parties, but I fear lately that there has been some cross-contamination.

I haven’t decided what I think of the current court. Many have and some of it is not very kind. But there are those who are pleased to see what they think is representation or tolerance of their point of view. I’m wondering why lately it seems so impersonal or out of touch with our daily lives.

We know there was considerable political maneuvering to appoint the most recent justices. We know, too, the newest three are labeled conservative or constitutionalist justices.

My perception was that one of the priorities of the highest court of the land was protection of the rights of individuals as granted in the Constitution, its amendments and cases decided before it. Turns out that isn’t what all justices believe is their role or priority, at least not literally.

The friction or difference seems to be in the interpretation of the constitution. The newest members of SCOTUS join two others who are seen as constitutionalist — those who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution — and one fence-sitter more conservative than not.

States rights, individual rights

I understand constitutionalist to mean interpreting the Constitution as a document intended to establish a small or limited role of government and assure state sovereignty, the latter being most in play in this day of GOP controlled state legislators adjusting state voting laws and procedures. Many claim that some state laws are violating eligible citizens’ right to have their vote cast and counted.

An example of SCOTUS leaning toward the prerogative of states is a July 2021 decision in which the five constitutionalists agreed that Arizona may discard a ballot if the voter cast it in the wrong precinct (usually known as a provisional ballot) and forbid a person other than the voter to drop off ballots. The decision was seen by those concerned about access to voting as another weakening of the Voting Rights Act, which some scold referred to as a “dead letter.”

Many of you will recall the 2013 decision that removed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which called for Justice Department clearance for nine states if they made changes to voting procedures. Some opined that since a black person was elected president, the court declared these states over any need or desire to block access to voting.

The nine states relieved of oversight were Alaska, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia. Multiple counties in other states were also freed from oversight. If you follow the news related to election laws, you already know that certain of these states and counties, given their newfound freedom, have been “reforming” election laws and procedures.

Thus far SCOTUS does not seem inclined to limit the governing role of states as shown in the decision to allow a Texas law seeking to limit access to abortions. The Court decided the limitations could proceed until the final decision of the court who knows when. The confounding aspect of the law was the provision that any bystander who became aware of a person who helped a pregnant woman access an abortion can sue that person for up to $10,000.

A whole new business is born with the support of SCOTUS – stalk pregnant women, especially the young and unmarried, and take names and addresses of anyone who helps. Women’s rights to privacy are legally up for sale.

Federal government and individual rights

SCOTUS is less friendly to federal government actions that potentially deny individual rights. The court, that is the constitutionalists, struck down the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandate that businesses with at least 100 employees require COVID vaccinations or testing/masks. They reasoned such a mandate was an encroachment into the lives and health of many people.

That’s true. This pesky pandemic and all the work to control the spread has been an encroachment on all our lives, certainly our health in that it resulted in 861,250 deaths to date of this writing.

The rationale also included, “Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in school, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather.”

I hope that makes more sense in context. I guess they haven’t heard of the “bubble,” — you know, the bubble of people with whom you live and can control the environment.

Justice Gorsuch is obviously a believer of individual rights in this instance given he refuses to wear a mask when he is at the table with other justices.

Shouldn’t the question to a constitutionalist be: What should happen when a state exceeds its limited government role?

Justice delayed

The last six years has taught me that justice is anything but swift and accessible to all. Besides an out of touch SCOTUS, we have sanctioned processes that benefit those that want to limit government and protect the wealthy who can burden the court with delay and without consequences. After lifelong practice, our former president has the money and is masterful at using the courts to avoid accountability.

One year ago, we had what is being exposed as a plotted effort to overturn the last presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power. Those in a position to hold people legally accountable are working to unscramble all the key players and activities to get to the truth.

True to form, many of those law questions are going to land in the Supreme Court. We will learn more about the court in the coming months, especially their attention to the rule of law as any good constitutionalist should do.

First a pause and a visit back to Diana Ross and the Supremes. A special 95th birthday wish to my love. “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough!”

Bertha Cooper, a featured columnist in the Sequim Gazette, spent her career years in health care administration, program development and consultation and it the author of the award-winning “Women, We’re Only Old Once.” Cooper and her husband have lived in Sequim more than 20 years. Reach her at columnists@sequimgazette.com.