This morning the Supreme Court released a pair of decisions, one of which was a solid win for same-sex couples (birth certificates mush now list both parents) and a pretty bad blow to the most vulnerable Muslim refugees (the White House can ban entry to anyone without a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”).
The former seems like a big leap forward toward a just society, while the latter at least a solid stop backward (if I’m seeming overly optimistic in calling this only a step backward, just consider how vaguely broad “a credible claim” to a “bona fide relationship” to any person or entity in the U.S. is—Wanna help refugees? Start a pen-pal program!).
Viewed objectively, these average out to a minor win for the Arc of History in its quest to bend toward justice. Keep your heart, progressives! (and don’t forget to call your reps!)
But all that doesn’t interest me as much as the buried lede: In
both cases, a unified block composed of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch backed an narrow, regressive alternative reading of the law that is, at the very least, remarkable in how uncharitable it is, in addition to hinting a kind of disconcerting credulity when it comes to the claims of ruling powers (be they the PotUS or the State of Arkansas) that seem set on playing abusive word-games in order to give the force of law to their personal bigotries.🇺🇸🔥