The Courts Shouldn’t Decide If You’re Fully Human
From Dred Scott to Dobbs, the U.S. legal system has repeatedly asked whether certain people deserve rights. That’s not justice. That’s control.
You’re reading a free post from Reasoned Reality, where I dissect religious dogma and challenge faith-based narratives with facts, reason, and a sharp edge.
If you value this work and want to help it grow, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for just $6.66/month. Your support helps fund future deep-dive essays, video documentaries, and public challenges to Christian nationalism.
Truth doesn’t fear scrutiny. It invites it.
Throughout American history, the highest courts in the land have done more than interpret laws. They’ve decided which groups count as fully human under the law—and which do not.
It’s not ancient history. It’s recent, repeated, and raw.
Black Americans in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) were told they had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Women’s rights in Roe v. Wade (1973) were granted and then stripped back in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022).
LGBTQ+ rights were only recognized federally in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), with dozens of ongoing legal threats.
Disabled Americans have had to fight case by case to enforce protections under the ADA.
Immigrants and asylum seekers, especially under Trump v. Hawaii (2018), saw constitutional protections bend to political ideology.
Each case didn’t just rule on legality. It redefined who counts. Who is protected. Who is seen.
And every time, the courts weren’t simply ruling on policy—they were passing judgment on personhood.
Why This Matters
Because in a functioning democracy, no one’s humanity should be debated by a panel of nine.
If you’ve never had to wait on a Supreme Court ruling to determine if you can marry, use a public restroom, attend a school, or control your own body—you’re living inside a bubble of privilege. That’s not normal. That’s not equality. That’s a system that favors some and marginalizes others.
Rights shouldn’t be granted based on public opinion. Dignity shouldn’t hinge on the ideology of a court majority. And your humanity should never depend on a legal argument.
What’s at Stake Now
Today’s rulings aren’t isolated events. They’re part of a larger movement—one where religious ideology is masquerading as law. Where the separation of church and state is eroding. Where judicial decisions are increasingly shaped by Christian nationalism, not constitutional principle.
That’s not just policy drift. That’s moral decay.
When justices treat scripture as precedent and dogma as doctrine, entire communities are left unprotected. LGBTQ+ people. Women. People of color. Immigrants. The disabled. All forced to live at the mercy of someone else's theology.
This isn’t about disagreement. It’s about dehumanization.
And if we don’t push back, the list of who must “prove” their humanity will only grow.
Because in a just system, no one’s humanity is up for debate.
If that feels obvious to you, speak up. Because for millions of Americans, it’s still not their reality. But it could be—if enough of us demand it.
This space is for all of us who were handed fear and called it faith. Who were taught to sacrifice ourselves for the comfort of others. Who are finally learning to take it all back.
Thank you for reading Reasoned Reality. If this resonated with you, consider becoming a subscriber to support future stories like this.
👉 $6.66/month. Because truth doesn’t fear scrutiny. It invites it.