by Noah "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political hacks." - Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as she admonished the court about the hearing of a case that could end abortion rights. There's a legend in American music lore that says legendary Mississippi blues composer and singer Robert Johnson "went down to the crossroads" and made a deal with the Devil. He then became the greatest bluesman of his time and arguably of all time but, in a case of be careful what you wish for, he was soon poisoned and died a horribly painful death. On Wednesday, December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court put itself at a crossroads and heard a case from Mississippi that has been designed to end a woman's right to an abortion. Since the Roe v. Wade ruling in January of 1973 which upheld that right as a constitutional right, justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents have turned away all efforts to overturn it. Now, however, Republicans have been able to stack the court with activist conservative justices of dubious impartiality who were nominated strictly because they were committed to ending the Constitutional right to abortion. They, too, made a deal with a devil. The crossroads that the John Roberts Supreme Court has placed itself at is more than just the choice of whether or not to take away a right. The court now has a clear choice about how they wish to be perceived and regarded in the future. They have a choice of being seen as the respected serious impartial entity they were built to be or they can choose to destroy whatever tenuous esteem and regard they are held in today. In short, do they want to be seen as impartial judges or just the kind of political hacks that infest both houses of Congress. If they choose the latter, then they might as well put robes on the likes of Marjorie Traitor Greene, Gym Jordan, and any one of a growing parade of buffoons this nation has saddled itself with. Ruling against women and Roe v. Wade would also be the first time that the Supreme Court has taken away a Constitutional right. It's no small matter that taking away a woman's liberty and allowing the government, either federal or state, to dictate what their lives can be is at stake. Back in 1857, the court's Dred Scott decision even created a continuation or growth of slave owners rights, rights that amounted to the right of a slave owner to do whatever they wanted with their slaves. It would be roughly another 60 years before women were allowed to even vote. Nice to know where the priorities and societal hierarchies always sit, isn't it? But this time, it's even worse. This time, stolen seats on the court who are nothing but political appointees have tipped the balance and are poised to take away a Constitutional right, a right of half the citizens of this country, for the first time. There are two ways to put a possible anti-Roe v. Wade decision in perspective. Both of them are hideous. 1) Women aren't historically even equal to a class of people who were allowed to rape, beat, maime, and, or murder other humans with impunity, and, 2) Women are to be slaves as well, dictated to by governmental officials and legislators right down to what they choose to do with their bodies and live their lives. Just the court hearing and dignifying the attack on a woman's right to choose shows us how low the majority of the court regards women. What other evidence does one need? The Supreme Court has put itself on trial in the court of public opinion. I would not argue much with anyone who might suggest that the name of Chief Justice Roberts should be a sixth name on Middle Aged Riot's tweet. There are plenty of reasons to expand the number of justices on the court anyway. For one thing, when this country went to 9 justices on the court, the population was 39,000,000. Now, it's nearing 340,000,000. For another, ideally, expanding the court might up the average intelligence and quality of the justices and make up for the likes of porn collector Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and, not the least, Brett Kavanaugh who reportedly has other issues in relating to women. But, I offer two words that negate that idea of court expansion: Manchin and Sinema. Their presence makes it unlikely. Meanwhile, be sure to thank Susan Collins and Moscow Mitch for this horrible state of affairs. Hey, Susan, what's your bogus level of concern now? Fuck Maine! Saw them off and push them out to the North Atlantic Ridge and sit them on top of a volcano. As I write this, it certainly does look like Roe v. Wade will be overturned in a fit of activist frenzy and the conservative need to repress women. The last three names on the above list lied when they said they said they felt Roe v. Wade is settled precedent and law during their confirmation hearing. They proved they are nothing but politicians right then and there. It's all just further proof that our law schools have a knack for turning out lawyers who have no concept of fairness and compassion. Republicans, be careful what you wish for. As Robert Johnson learned, success can be fleeting and have a dear cost.