THE SUPREME COURT ALWAYS SERVES THE RICH
September 19, 2020
The actual function of the Supreme Court in both the United States and in Israel (and no doubt in the other "representative democracies") has been to ensure that the ruling upper class remains in power. The Supreme Court does this in various ways.
One way is by preventing the states' legislators from implementing big mistakes that would undermine the public's (remaining) belief that the rule of the upper class (via so-called "representative democracy") is legitimate. The purpose in this cass is to protect the PR that disguises the true nature of these states as cruel dictatorships of the rich.
Another way is by ensuring that divide-and-rule methods used by the ruling class remain effective.
And another way is by interpreting the law (and Constitution, when relevant) so as to enable the ruling class to do what happens to be necessary, at the time, to remain in power.
Let's see how the Supreme Courts have done this lately
On occasion the Israeli Supreme Court says 'No' to the Israeli parliament (Knesset) when it passes a law so egregiously racist against non-Jews that--if enforced--it would make many Jews start to agree with Zionist foes who say Israel's government is simply fascist. Of course the Israeli Supreme Court never rules against the racist and violent ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the 78% of Palestine now called Israel; it only rules now and then against laws that are exceptionally bad from a PR point of view.
Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court works to prevent the Congress from enacting laws that would too thoroughly alienate a large segment of the U.S. public. This is why the Supreme Court has acted to keep abortion laws in the current compromise zone between the small minority who want no restriction of abortion and the small minority who want to make abortion always illegal.
When the U.S. ruling class decided to use the same-sex marriage issue for divide-and-rule big time, it required completely censoring any rational and realistic discussion of the issue, as I discuss here. The Supreme Court played a key role in maintaining this censorship as I discuss here in detail.
Recently the U.S. Supreme Court declared it was illegal for local governments to deny homeless people their right to sleep in public places. Why? It wasn't because the Supreme Court opposed the right of the upper class to throw poor people onto the street or to treat ordinary people like dirt in the countless ways that it does routinely (as I illustrate in some detail). No. It was because the Supreme Court worried that laws denying homeless people the right to sleep in public places would make the true nature of our cruel dictatorship of the rich just too damned obvious to too many people and thereby hasten the growth of a revolutionary movement.
The much touted conflict between the justices on the right and left is simply a minor disagreement about what kinds of arguments to make to defend their decisions, and where exactly to draw the line between what is and what is not too dangerous a mistake by the legislators.
Fundamentally, the Supreme Court(s) look at what the people are doing "in the street" and evaluate how best to respond to it. These courts ponder whether the ruling plutocracy can tighten the screw more without overly risking revolution, or whether it would be a big mistake to tighten the screw more. This is the kind of consideration that led to the passage of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's abolition of Jim Crow, novel policies which, of course, the Supreme Court broke with precedent to endorse when--and only when!--it became necessary in order to keep the ruling class in power.