The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Political operatives disguised as jurists

- Maureen Dowd She writes for the New York Times.

WASHINGTON — I was watching Vogue’s live feed as Kim Kardashian tried to walk the red carpet at the Met Gala in her skintight, flesh-tone dress. I flashed back to Marilyn Monroe on another May night in Gotham, doing similar mincing steps in a similar shimmering dress.

Then Variety sent out a news bulletin that Kim was actually wearing Marilyn’s dress.

As I was contemplat­ing the comeback of this sartorial symbol of American seduction, I got another news bulletin: The Supreme Court was going to yank away the right of women to control their own bodies, strapping us into a time machine hurtling backward.

The two simultaneo­us emails were a perfect distillati­on of America’s bizarre duality — our contradict­ory strains of sexuality and priggishne­ss.

Justice Samuel Alito’s antediluvi­an draft opinion is the Puritans’ greatest victory since they expelled Roger Williams from the Massachuse­tts Bay Colony.

Alito is a familiar type in American literature: the holierthan-thou preacher.

Newt Gingrich pursued Bill Clinton, even as he was having an affair with a young political aide (whom he later married). And prissy Ken Starr hounded Monica Lewinsky, producing a seven-volume report that read like a panting bodice-ripper, full of lurid passages about breasts, stains and genitalia.

The 1999 version of Donald Trump, when he was still a fan of the Clintons and boasting that he was “pro-choice in every respect,” was appalled. “Starr’s a freak,” he told me back then. “I bet he’s got something in his closet.”

Like Ronald Reagan, Trump was a Democrat who turned conservati­ve, latching onto the Christian evangelica­l electorate. As Carl Hulse reported in “Confirmati­on Bias,” Trump soothed conservati­ves uneasy with his lax morality by promising to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The libertine who transgress­ed with women traded off their rights to nail down a base.

The stunning reversal on women’s rights is the apotheosis of the last 40 years, through Reagan, Schlafly, Meese, Rehnquist and Scalia, climaxing in Mitch McConnell, who made a Faustian bargain to support chucklehea­ded Trump to get a conservati­ve court.

The Founding Fathers would be less surprised that there’s a popular musical about Alexander Hamilton than they would be that the majority of the court is relying on a literal interpreta­tion of a document conceived in the agrarian 1780s.

They would be devastated that the court is just another hack institutio­n with partisan leaks. Alito helped open the door to dark money and helped gut the Voting Rights Act, but he wants to ban abortion largely because, he says, the Constituti­on doesn’t expressly allow it. That’s so fatuous. The Constituti­on doesn’t mention an awful lot of things that the court involves itself with. But while it expressly prohibits state-sanctioned religion, this court seems ready to let some rebel public school football coach convene a prayer session after games. These rogue justices are always ready to twist the Constituti­on to their purposes.

They are strict constructi­onists all right, strictly interested in constructi­ng a society that comports with their rigid, religiousl­y driven worldview. It is outrageous that five unelected, unaccounta­ble and relatively unknown political operatives masqueradi­ng as impartial jurists can so profoundly alter our lives.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States