The battle over the Supreme Court isn’t just about abortion and LGBT rights; it’s also about the plutocracy vs the 99%. I am reminded of that not only in the Citizens United ruling, but also in the challenges to the Obamacare contraception mandate by religious institutions. How can businesses (such as nursing homes and craft stores) have beliefs about contraception ? (only people have beliefs!) Do businesses owners also own their employees? (Certainly not!) Why should the owners, and not the workers, choose the health insurance plan?
The concept of business ownership has shifted significantly over the years. In the 1950’s many thought that a business was run for the benefit of the workers, the buyers of the products and suppliers of raw materials, and the community at large. Shareholders had nothing more than a residual claim. Unfortunately, with the rise of the right wing think tanks, the plutocratic takeover of business schools, and the popularity of Milton Friedman (the darling of Reagan and Thatcher), owners and shareholders rose to a place of exaggerated importance. Then, with Karl Ican and the corporate raiders, (Mitt Romney included) the interests of workers, consumers and community declined even further. So when Supreme Court contenders like Amy Coney Barrett have taken positions in opposition to the contraception mandate, I wonder about how they view our rights at work. Do they view us as less than human? Not deserving of the same rights as the wealthy? I am especially disturbed when the contraception mandate is labeled as a matter of religious liberty. How can taking away a poor woman’s ability to choose contraception (over abstinence or pregnancy) be anything but a restriction of liberty?
Long before Citizens United there was the Lochner decision where the court also took rights granted to people and applied them to businesses. The Lochner decision overturned a New York Law that limited bakers’ hours to a maximum of 10 hours per day. The court’s justification came from the 14th amendment of 1868. Part of the intent of that amendment was to allow freed slaves to have a right to make a living and choose their line of work. In 1905 the jurists applied that idea of a right to livelihood to the owners of the bakery whose profits might be restricted if laws were passed to protect workers. For 40 years the courts struck down workplace regulations including minimum wage laws, using the rational from the Lochner decision. Don Wiilett, on Trump’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees, says he wants to bring back Lochner. (But then again, he also supports the intent of the 14th amendment, as when he rails against the corrupt asset forfeiture activities of the police.)
We need a Supreme Court that recognizes that people in their role as wage-earners need protections from tyrannical employers, and people as community members need protections from pollution, and people as citizens need protection from business and plutocratic attempts at government corruption.