CT Blue

Everyone is aware that the Republican Party is in the grip of religious fundamentalists, but over the next few years we will become ever more aware that it, and as a result the nation, is now in the grip of legal fundamentalists, judges who are intent on reviving once thought dead constitutional jurisprudence in order to render the federal government powerless to address issues of national concern.

This is a recent example:

For nearly a year, millions of Americans who are unable to pay their rent due to the economic crisis triggered by Covid-19 have had some protections against eviction. Both the CARES Act, which became law last March, and the second Covid-19 relief bill, which was signed in December, included temporary moratoriums on many evictions.

In the interim periods when these statutory safeguards against eviction are not in effect — the CARES Act’s moratorium expired after 120 days, and the second relief bill’s moratorium expired on January 31 — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed a similar moratorium using its own authority, citing a federal law that permits the CDC director to “make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.”

On Thursday evening, a Trump-appointed judge on a federal court in Texas handed down a decision that calls into question the legality of these moratoriums. Currently, there is no congressional moratorium on evictions in place, only the CDC moratorium, although it is likely that the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill currently being negotiated in Congress will implement a new statutory moratorium.

The article to which I’ve linked begins its discussion of the previously relevant case law with this entirely justifiable statement:

The opinion is a mélange of libertarian tropes, long-discarded constitutional theory, and statements that are entirely at odds with binding Supreme Court decisions.

As the article amply proves, the Texas judge ignored binding precedent in an almost breathtaking display of legal bullshittery. Nonetheless, the likelihood is that he’ll be upheld, as will most of the cases brought to frustrate any legislation the Democrats manage to get by Senate Republicans, Joe Manchin, and Kyrsten Sinema.

The intent of these decisions, and it is by design, is to drag our constitutional jurisprudence back into the early nineteenth century, rendering it impossible for the federal government to respond to the realities of modern times. This is entirely consistent with the Republican philosophy, articulated by Saint Ronnie, that government is the problem and can never be the solution. What better way to prove that proposition than by making it legally impossible for the government to accomplish anything? It is also consistent with another objective: returning the country to the conditions prevalent in the South prior to the voting rights act and the abolition of the poll tax, such that the vast majority of people inclined to vote against the Republican Party and its fascist agenda will be disenfranchised. The next step will be the return of Jim Crow, complete with a denial that they are doing exactly that.

Addendum: It is somewhat misleading to refer to judges as “Trump-appointed”. Trump had little or nothing to do with choosing judges. As with everything else, he really didn’t care. He simply passed on names given to him by McConnell and/or the Federalist Society. That Society will, for the foreseeable future, continue to hold sway whenever we have a Republican president.