The Hacking by and Stacking of the Supreme Court

The very unsupreme court finds itself in a feeble state morally and politically following the release of its plans to overturn Roe vs Wade. 

MSNBC’s Ari Melber highlights what conservative Supreme Court Justices said about the longstanding precedent of Roe v. Wade under oath during their confirmation hearings.

Remember that its newest member was rushed into her position while an election was going on and following her appointment gave a speech to let us all know that “we are not political hacks.”  The speech was delivered at the senate majority leader’s auditorium with the senate majority leader in attendance.  This is the same senate majority leader who declared four years previously that President Obama could not name a supreme court judge at any time during his last year in office.  It seems what is good for the goose is not good for the gander after all.

What diminished credibility the Supreme Court retained after antics like that and after refusing to enforce the voting rights act and to interfere with the Texas law and its bounty hunting after women and their counselors (when abortion is still the law of the land to allow it), and after allowing dark money from big, secret organizations to flood elections) is now kaput. 

Roe v Wade: What national polls reveal about American opinions. Report by ABC/WCPO 9

The five political hacks on the current Supreme Court, driven by a sick marriage of religious ideologies and political hucksterism, feel themselves anointed to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.  Especially poor women.  Especially black and brown women.  Let us not forget that two of these four justices are accused by women of sexual indiscretions and violence.  Accusations that were never duly investigated. 

According to the NPR, a Marist/PBS/Maris poll in 2019 Found ¾ of respondents said abortion should remain legal in some form.  Just 13% said Roe should be overturned.  Gallup also found that only about one in five believe it should be illegal in all circumstances.  As NPR put is, “a Supreme Court opinion outright overturning Roe would be woefully out of step with the American public.” 

Woefully out of step.

AND a bearer of woe.

ABC News contributor Kate Shaw and Drexel University law professor David Cohen explain long-term ways overturning Roe v. Wade could impact the country. ABC News

Who has anointed old white man Mr. Alito to dictate to women what they should do with their bodies?  Or Mr. Clarence Thomas (and his insurrectionist-loving wife)?  Or Mr. (“I love beer!”) Kavanaugh?  Or Mr. Gorsuch?  Or Ms. Amy (“we are not political hacks”) Barrett?  Are they also considering laws to tell men what they can and cannot do with their bodies? 

Are these people SO stupid or SO driven by religious ideologies or SO indebted to politicians who appointed them (three of them having been appointed by the saintly father and three-time-husband, himself accused of groping 22 women and having declared on tape that he encourages groping women’s private areas) that they don’t recognize they are in a deep minority—only 13% of Americans agree with them?  And, by the way, 2/3 of Roman Catholics are in favor of abortion also.

Even 12 year-olds raped by their father or brother or another relative must bring the baby to birth according to these all-knowing and all-seeing supreme court geniuses eager to tell women what to do and not do with their bodies.

Forty-nine years of court precedence is thrown out the window because they know something 87% of other Americans do not know.  How wise they must be to be so much smarter than everyone else!  This means nothing previous supreme courts have declared is safe from their hacking.

Matthew Fox, “Moving Beyond the Abortion Fixation: Some Theological Context,” in Conscience Magazine: The Newsjournal of Catholic Opinion,” vol. xvi, No. 2, 2020, pp. 24-29.

See Matthew Fox writing on abortion previously in dailymeditationswithmatthewfox, Sept 4, 5, 6, 2021; and Dec. 3, 4, 5, 6, 2021.

See: Domenico Montanaro,The political consequences of the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion on abortion,” on NPR, 5/3/2022.

To read the transcript of Matthew Fox’s video teaching, click HERE.

Banner Image: Huge crowd at the Supreme Court the night after the release of Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. Photo by Victoria Pickering on Flickr.

Queries for Contemplation

Do you agree that a dangerous precedent ensues when a Supreme court is woefully out of step with the public it is meant to serve and when the result of its declarations bring tremendous woe upon many citizens of the country?  What to do about it?

Recommended Reading

Moving Beyond the Abortion Fixation: Some Theological Context”
by Matthew Fox
A recent statement by a Roman Catholic bishop that abortion and Roe v. Wade were the ultimate concern in this year’s presidential elect ion is beyond foolish—it is a fetishizing of the issue to the exclusion of all other moral concerns.
By viewing abortion in its historical and theological contexts, it is my hope that an obstruction in discourse that, for many, has become both a political obsession and red herring, can be removed to allow for a broader space where discussion on a variety of pressing issues can occur. Placing abortion in its proper context can bring into focus a true representation of the overall landscape of concerns held by the faithful. In contextualizing,  and thus removing, this obstacle to discourse, I believe that a common ground can be cleared, upon which more expansive discussions pertaining to justice and the shared good of the faithful can be held by all parties………Read more HERE.

Responses are welcomed. To add your comment, please click HERE or scroll to the bottom of the page.

Share this meditation


Daily Meditations with Matthew Fox is made possible through the generosity of donors. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation

Search Meditations





Receive our daily meditations

23 thoughts on “The Hacking by and Stacking of the Supreme Court”

  1. Richard Reich-Kuykendall
    Richard Reich-Kuykendall

    Matthew, You ask of us today in our Queries for Contemplation: “Do you agree that a dangerous precedent ensues when a Supreme court is woefully out of step with the public it is meant to serve and when the result of its declarations bring tremendous woe upon many citizens of the country?” That is definitely the case! I agree with the Lucille on the MSNBC news clip that the decision about pregnancy should not be decided by the government but by the people affected. Despite all of the arguments when life begins–all the theological arguments, and the ethical questions, the bottom line is that it does not seem that the government should have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do to her own body!!!
    “What to do about it?” We can join in with the protests and demonstrations and lend our voices. And we can write–to our elected officials of our concerns in this matter, or articles for papers or magazines if we are able.

  2. Avatar

    Dear Mathew, you bring such clarity surrounding this issue that I can’t help but think many who struggle with their perspective or who need the be grounded in truth today could greatly benefit from your voice in the public media spotlight today with what you shared in today’s meditation. People search for and need a leader who helps them see through the distractions which you bring so eloquently here. ❤️

  3. Avatar

    “When will they ever learn”..they (whether it be the Supreme Court or any other legislative body) cannot legislate morality. Their job is to inform the public in these matters. Therefore was Roe V. Wade wrong or misguided back in 1973???

    1. Avatar
      Olive Bolivar

      The Supreme Court isn’t another legislative body. And Alito is doing precisely what you suggest: Ruling on the original decision: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start, . . . ” He then goes on to explain *why* it was “egregiously wrong”: “It [Roe decision] held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of the right to privacy, which is also not mentioned. . . .”

  4. Avatar
    Jeanette Metler

    Recently on the CBC, a reporter commented that the abortion issue is a matter of one’s civil rights with regards to choices and decisions concerning one’s own body and also that this an issue of being provided with health care that supports this civil right. This reporter stated that constitutionally that it is these rights that are to be the focus of concern in making any further decisions regarding Roe vs Wade. I agree with these comments.

    Unfortunately it is these very constitutional civil rights that are being threatened… by the bias of religious beliefs… and the moral and ethical absolutes that are rooted in these religious beliefs… deemed often as righteousness… which not all people share.

    Righteousness for me personally is about being in right relationship with. In applying this to the abortion issue… I see this to mean that all human beings have the personal right and responsibility to self govern their own choices and decisions regarding their own relationship with their own bodies. This, in my opinion, aught to be respected and honored… above and beyond any man made religious absolutes and the bias of morality and ethics that are rooted in religious beliefs… and these influencing the so called supreme institutions, the court of man made rules and laws upon another’s personal right and responsibility to self govern their own choices and decisions regarding one’s own body and their relationship with this. The relationship with our own bodies is personal and so are the choices and decisions we make in relationship with our bodies… be what they may.

    I’ve heard some comments recently by some males that the abortion issue is a womens issue and that it is women whom need to take a stand on this for themselves. I do not perceive abortion to be merely a woman’s issue, but rather a human issue… which both women and men must come to terms with, within themselves… without crossing the line of opposing onto another one’s own religious beliefs or the moral and ethical influences and bias within this. Righteousness is not about opposing onto another, one’s own personal relationship with their own bodies and the choices and decisions each one makes in relationship to this. Doing so in my opinion is an act of injustice upon another.

    In my opinion there will be no peaceful resolution found in overturning the current ruling of Roe vs Wade and the differing polarities at odds within this… but rather each one personally must learn to live within the tension of these… exercising the human right to choose and decide for oneself the self governence of one’s personal relationship with one’s own body… without crossing the line, opposing this onto others.

    1. Avatar
      Olive Bolivar

      All health decision, including abortion, are personal—we have HIIPPA laws to protect access to our personal health decisions (and I wonder if these “laws” excising the right of women to healthcare acts and privacy aren’t violating the HIPPA laws).
      Whether a resolution is peaceful or not depends on whether people can agree to stay out of other people’s business. You can’t have peace when others are threatening you and using the force of law to intrude on your private business.

      1. Richard Reich-Kuykendall
        Richard Reich-Kuykendall

        Olive, You write: “You can’t have peace when others are threatening you and using the force of law to intrude on your private business.” To this I say AMEN !!!

      2. Avatar

        An excellent point about violating HIPPA, and this is probably why the Texas law in particular relies on people informing on others. Medical records are supposed to be private.

  5. Avatar

    God’s Spirit of Love~Wisdom~Truth~Peace~Justice~Freedom… will prevail in our hearts and our relations with one another, society, Mother Earth, and our eternal soul spiritual journeys as co-Creators with-in Loving Mother~Father Creator….

  6. Avatar

    I understand that there is a difference of opinion on abortions. I understand that some believe they are standing up for the rights of the unborn while others believe they are standing up for the rights of the woman, And as the old saying goes if you don’t stand up for something, you’ll fall for anything. This leads me to my opinion, we may disagree but there is no need to speak disrespectfully, mentioning behaviors that one considers objectionable to try to get “an edge” in one’s argument. Disagreement does not justify being unkind. May we all have the desire to follow the Teachings of Y’shua Mshikha- especially those given in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain. I, personally, understand there are two rules we all may have the opportunity to follow: Love God, Love our neighbor. Peace and All Good, Francis P.

    1. Richard Reich-Kuykendall
      Richard Reich-Kuykendall

      Francis, Thank you for your comment, and I agree with what you say: “we may disagree but there is no need to speak disrespectfully… Disagreement does not justify being unkind.”

  7. Avatar
    harry stewart

    I agree with so much Matthew Fox says and the comments in response
    BUT. What of the entity in the womb? It then becomes becomes meaningless
    protoplasm. Surely, that is the conundrum we are now left with.
    Harry Stewart
    Leominster England

    1. Avatar
      Olive Bolivar

      What’s in the womb, until it becomes capable of independent survival, is not an independent “entity.” It is a collection of cells with the *potential* to develop into something viable, meaningful, and autonomous. It is a part of the woman’s body.
      We also note that numerous *living* cells, with the potential to develop into something else, are excreted, washed down drains, spat out with toothpaste, and cut out by surgeons every day. There is no difference between the cells generated by a pregnancy *until* the cells become an independent being.

  8. Avatar
    Olive Bolivar

    This ruling will do fatal damage to FAR more than women. This decision has the clear purpose and intent to completely revise the Constitution to suit far rightwing ideology.
    It will establish a precedent for abolishing constitutional rights far beyond abortion rights.
    Note the premise Alito cited: “abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution.” — Well—neither is voting a right that is explicitly protected in the Constitution. Neither is there any protection from discrimination based on race, age, gender, or anything else. Nor any right to privacy. The Constitution does not mention homosexuality or slavery.
    I come from a background of legal training and I understand that most people do not grasp the strength of precedent; but should anyone be interested in living in a free society, they might think about educating themselves—which is the reason that Kavanaugh’s confirmation statement about overturning precedent caused the people who DO understand it to break into a cold sweat. Precedent is the very foundation of the rule of law. Striking precedent means these hacks get to REWRITE the Constitution according to their personal preferences.
    The second issue is that this ruling has the effect of a de facto establishment of religion because the people who sign onto the decision all embrace specific religious convictions and regularly and publicly announce that fact. They have made a decision with NO constitutional basis made entirely on their religious convictions which has the effect of forcing their religious dicta on everyone else—a clear violation of the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment. The fact that Alito *claims* to have a monopoly on deciding that there is no constitutional basis for something doesn’t mean it’s so—it mainly means that Alito thinks himself superior to all other constitutional scholars—most of whom have condemned this opinion.
    This Gang of Hacks has usurped the constitutional duties of the legislature. It has rewritten the Constitution according to its own convictions. It will not stop with abortion.

    1. Richard Reich-Kuykendall
      Richard Reich-Kuykendall

      Olive, Thank you for informing us of the importance of “precedence” and the scary point that “They have made a decision with NO constitutional basis made entirely on their religious convictions which has the effect of forcing their religious dicta on everyone else—a clear violation of the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment…”

  9. Avatar

    I am posting this commentary that is recirculating on social media. Powerful words to ponder.

    “The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
    Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

    1. Avatar

      This is very similar to a comment made by Benedictan sister Joan Chichester. She ends by commenting that these people are not “pro-life” as they claim, but pro-BIRTH.

  10. Avatar

    I respect those who believe that life/soul begins at conception, although this has not always been the dogma even of the Roman Catholic Church. I respect those who believe that life begins when the fetus is viable, capable of surviving outside the womb. The latter is a secular view. This is a secular country. Therefore, no laws should be made based on any religious dogma. We are dangerously close to a theocracy, as Matthew has pointed out. I am sick and tired and grieved by having my faith, based on the love of God and neighbor, completely ignored. I think that one thing we can do is ignore the pundits regarding the mid-terms and point out clearly and often those who are for taking the right to abortion away. Notice that certain senators refused to answer what they thought about the overturning of Roe vs Wade and went on and on about how the leak from the Supreme Court could have happened.

  11. Avatar
    Jeanette Metler

    I wonder what Doctors will do in the future, if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, in facing a woman whom is experiencing a utopic pregnancy… in which case the only recourse to save the woman’s life, is to abort the fetus in its cellular unformed stage… releasing this from her filopion tube. Will the Doctors uphold the possible newly overturned supreme court ruling, will they honor their professional oaths and vows… will they wrestle with their conscience failing to act in a timely and decisive manner, out of fear of the consequences of their choice… As you can see by my comment, nothing is merely black or white regarding this issue, and this is just one of many grey areas… the instances and difficult circumstances in which the only recourse of action, is the option of abortion to save a life. Aught not this decision to lie in the hands of the ones who’s life is at risk, as demonstrated in my comment?

    1. Avatar

      There is a law proposed in either Miss. or TX that it will be against the law to “abort” an ectopic pregnancy. If this passes, I wonder if they care that it will kill the woman? Because that is the outcome.

Leave a Comment

To help moderate the volume of responses, the Comment field is limited to 1500 characters (roughly 300 words), with one comment per person per day.

Please keep your comments focused on the topic of the day's Meditation.

As always, we look forward to your comments!!
The Daily Meditation Team

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join us in meditation that supports your compassionate action

Receive Matthew Fox's Daily Meditation by subscribing below: