[ad_1]
- The reputation of the Supreme Court is sinking.
- After decisions like the Texas abortion case, the court’s impartiality is in question.
- The hyper-partisan both in and around the court is to blame.
- Michael Gordon is a longtime Democratic strategist, a former spokesperson for the Department of Justice and the director of strategic communications firm Group Gordon.
- This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has admitted that the Supreme Court is collapsing as an institution.
Earlier this month, the new judge delivered a speech lamenting that the court is seen as partisan and warning that her fellow judges must be “hyper vigilant to ensure that they do not allow personal biases to creep in. their decisions “. She must know something that we don’t know.
These remarks may seem surprising. After all, Barrett was confirmed in court as part of a hyper-partisan process and delivered the aforementioned speech at an event celebrating Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, the architect of the system’s right turn. judicial. Despite the hypocrisy, or perhaps because of it, the comments struck a chord.
In an age when Republicans challenge legitimate election results because they lose or could lose, the credibility of the court is the next hammer to fall in our democracy, the last bastion of hope for non-partisan decision-making.
But now the Court is rightly losing public support as the veneer of impartiality slips, and the hyper-partisan both within and around the Court is to blame.
Partisan justice
Even just a few years ago, the Supreme Court was not as partisan as it is now. Support certainly began to erode when McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to serve on President Obama’s last nominee, current Attorney General Merrick Garland.
But there have been recent decisions that were, for lack of a better term, bipartisan. Justice Gorsuch has joined four liberal judges in supporting Native American land claims in Oklahoma. In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court kept the Affordable Care Act intact.
Just a few months ago, Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts helped uphold the moratorium on evictions in a 5-4 decision (although that was overturned a few months later in a separate case). Roberts, the chief justice who many say tries to keep the court as impartial as possible, has often found himself on the side of the liberal justices.
But, on issues important to many Americans, this two-party facade seems to be disappearing. First, the Supreme Court overturned the moratorium on evictions it so recently upheld, leaving millions of struggling Americans in limbo.
Then the death knell came a few weeks ago, when the Supreme Court blatantly signaled its desire to overthrow Roe vs. Wade by allowing a strict Texas anti-abortion law to come into effect. Although Roberts voted with the Liberals in that decision, the other Republican-appointed judges essentially set aside nearly 50 years of legal precedent.
Given the 6-3 Republican majority, it’s safe to assume we’ll see more decisions like this in the years to come. While Roberts can play as much as he wants, the Tories have a five-judge majority even without him and can rule on cases however they want.
Votes, not words
Republican decades-long strategy to focus on the court has paid off. They looked to the court to legitimize gerrymandering and gut the voting rights law, and justices like Barrett and Roberts backed them up.
These two judges are right to be concerned about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. They just need to realize that they are part of the legitimacy crisis problem.
Democrats have offered many solutions to this problem, ranging from expanding the court to adding term limits. But with these ideas at a standstill, once unthinkable national changes emanating from the Court are at play.
The Texas abortion decision is just the start. Roe could be canceled in full later this year. Even though Democrats have passed many of the landmark bills they are now debating, nothing prevents the Conservative court from simply striking them down, declaring them “unconstitutional” on the pretext of their choosing.
Maybe Barrett will join Roberts in making a real effort to adopt a more bipartisan tone. If she’s really worried about how the court looks and how some of her colleagues look at things, there is an opportunity for her to do something about it. But she must follow Roberts in his actions and join him in crossing party lines.
It is his votes, not his words, that count. I don’t hold my breath.
[ad_2]
Source link