Unitary Executive Causes Racism – Understanding Racism as a Product, Rather than a Driver, of Supreme Court Policy

In the United States if you want a nice car, you come up with a money-making scheme and try to save up and buy a car. In the USSR if you wanted a car, you tried to socially and politically advocate that cars are important. So that car production would be emphasized in economic planning, rather than tanks or Moon rockets or medicine or whatever.

So in the USSR you have to decide what you want collectively. And you have to politically advance a group of people who share your tastes and beliefs. Most likely these will be people from a similar background, whether retail merchants, college professors, laborers, or whatever. Getting what you want, is advancing the power of your group and saying the government plan should serve their interests. When things are decided collectively, you have to join with a group of people with uniform tastes.

This necessarily requires saying other groups are immoral or misguided. And includes sincerely believing the ideas and influence of competing groups are evil. It involves drawing boundaries on your group, and creating barriers to entry to not lose control of your group’s priorities and make sure they don’t drift. These boundaries very often involve race. As in white people know cars are important, black people want some other priority which is evil. So we have to keep black people and other factions from influencing government and destroying our nation.

Getting what you want in a place where everything is controlled by who wins an election every four years, means depriving people who are different from you of political power. Where according to Justice Gorsuch, the daily actions of every government employee must somehow be detailed in the compact message sent in a single election, what Gorsuch calls a “chain of dependence”. Which means the priorities transmitted in an election must be very uniform and not very detailed. And anything wanted by someone different from you, competes with and detracts from you getting what you want.

US Supreme Court justices believe that the executive branch regulated by politics is a more efficient way to serve preferences than courts regulated by legislation. And specifically a “unitary executive” that controls everything, rather than distributed decisions made by specialists in different areas. This means you literally have to decide in each election what the Federal Reserve should do, and every other government action. So you have to compete with people you disagree with, in the street, every single election.

Supreme Court justice say things like “the unitary executive” rather than legislation should control everything, and what he does is decided every single election. And that voters rather than legislation must decide what police and prosecutors do every election. We can never write laws, and have courts and petitioners enforce those laws on police and prosecutors. Whether police tear your car apart in the street, and whose car police tear apart in the street and who is protected, isn’t decided by courts and legislation. It’s decided every election by who wins that election and tells police to protect them and harm some other group.

So the only way you can protect yourself from police and prosecutors, is to exclude people who are different from you and who don’t know you, from having any say in government. You have to stop people with different priorities than you, or people who don’t care what happens to you or would harm you, from controlling the Federal Reserve with their whims and impulses. That leads to forming factions often using racial boundaries, and saying outsiders are evil and must be denied influence in government.