Speaking of Cement

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of the right of states, using the doctrine of eminent domain, to take private property from one person (at fair market value) and give it to another if the new owner could make better use of it by turning it to some function that would generate greater tax revenues for the state. The Court deemed this a “public good.” Oh, the outrage! How dare they take someone’s private property and allow someone else to decide that they know better how to use that property? What colossal nerve. And yet…

It was the justices who are usually labeled “liberal” who were the majority in this decision. Now, I have to tell you that I am, according to one of those online political self-scoring tests, liberal beyond any of the famous persons they charted for comparison, liberal beyond all rationality, apparently. Even I found this decision appalling. But the people who seem the most upset by this decision are, by and large, conservatives. Which makes sense, since it is the conservatives who are normally the ones wanting to protect the rights of private citizens from intrusion by the state. Or that’s what they say. But while they claim to be in favor of protection of private property and against intrusive government, they are the same ones who find it acceptable to intrude on decisions for others regarding those things that are the most private, the most personal, the most important… far more important than any plot of land.

They are virtually salivating right now at the news that Sandra Day O’Connor is retiring, and Rehnquist may not be far behind. So, George W. Bush will get to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice (shudder). If, as is expected, he appoints someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas, it will shift the character of the Court rightward, closer to the conservative party line. Just think of the ways in which autonomy will likely be eroded.

Women may lose the hard-won right to control their own bodies, their own reproduction, as someone else gains the authority to press them into service as unwilling incubators. Those who find themselves in the position of having to make heart-wrenching medical decisions for a spouse or a child may find themselves answerable to the government if they fail to make the “right” decision. For gay people it may be generations before their relationships are given equal legal consideration to those of heterosexuals. We may be forced to support private, religious schools. Even in public schools, our children’s education may be hijacked in service to religious ideology. We may be forced to financially support the “official state religion.” Scientific progress may be driven back to the Dark Ages. The environment may suffer irrecoverable harm if a mall might bring in more revenue than some old trees. Workers may finally be officially regarded as no more deserving of protections than any other asset owned by a company.

None of those things is beyond the realm of possibility. I read through that list and at first I thought, “Oh, Wow, are you paranoid.” But then I read through each item and really, it’s not so paranoid; these really are the things that the conservatives have been supporting and fighting for. I don’t understand how they see themselves as the party of less (and less intrusive) government. Apparently, they just put a nice-sounding name on each of the goals, such as “Right to Life,” “Protect Marriage,” “School Choice,” “Economic Development,” and that overshadows the actual character of the measure.

So what I see as pressing women into service as unwilling incubators, they see as “Right to Life.” My being forced to support the official state religion is their “Faith-based Initiative.” They already are trying to get religious beliefs taught as science in public schools, but they see it as teaching “alternative” scientific theories. Here in Arizona we have “right to work” laws; an employer can fire you for any reason or no reason. Owners win, employees are just chattel. Already the Bush administration just rewrites the parts of official reports that don’t support their desired goals. Overgrazing of public lands is no longer devastating to the environment; it is now “good for animals.” And we all saw what happened to Terri Schaivo’s husband. Yes, there will be plenty to worry about in the coming years, but not all is bad news.

There will be, if the new court gets its way, greater protection of autonomy in some areas. Your most personal possessions, your body and your mind, your most private relationships could be fair game for intrusion by the state religion police, but smile, your house and your guns will be safe.