• Home
  • Opinion
  • Quizzes
  • Redistricting
  • Sections
  • About Us
  • Voting
  • Events
  • Civic Ed
  • Campaign Finance
  • Directory
  • Election Dissection
  • Fact Check
  • Glossary
  • Independent Voter News
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Balance of Power>
  3. supreme court>

New year, time for new thinking about the undemocratic nature of the high court

Katie Scofield
December 23, 2020
Amy Coney Barrett

The newest justice, Amy Coneey Barrett, joined a Supreme Court that is inherently undemocratic, writes Scofield.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Scofield has a doctorate in comparative constitutional law and teaches government at Blinn College in Texas.


Asked to name a famous Supreme Court case, many Americans would probably initially think of three that are the best known for expanding the constitutional rights of individuals: Brown v. Board of Education, which said children have a right to attend desegregated schools in 1954; Roe v. Wade, which said women have a right to have abortions in 1973; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which said gays and lesbians have a right to get married in 2015.

These landmark decisions helped to create a political mythology of the Supreme Court as an institution that has always protected the rights of Americans. However, the politicization of the courts magnified by President Trump and Senate Republicans has ironically highlighted a truth often ignored: The nation's highest court is inherently undemocratic.

Since the election, Trump has made it clear he believes the court and the three justices he appointed — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — should deliver an electoral victory for him. This is despite the fact that Joe Biden won with 306 electoral votes and by a margin of more than 7 million votes.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

He and his allies were able to get a pair of challenges to the election considered by the court this month. It took only a few hours before tossing a suit seeking to reverse the outcome in Pennsylvania. It took about a day before rejecting a bid by Texas to overturn the results from four states Biden won.

"The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!," Trump tweeted after that second, decisive setback for him.

The rhetoric regarding the elections is a culmination of Trump and Senate Republicans' longstanding efforts to remake the courts. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell broke important senatorial norms by refusing to consider President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016, and by rushing the confirmation of Barrett just weeks before this year's election.

When Biden takes office in January, he will face a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that threatens his ability to carry out popular initiatives, from reforming health care to taking meaningful action on climate change.

Not only will the court have the power to block the policy agenda of a popularly elected president, but the very process of choosing justices has become widely undemocratic. Republicans have won the popular vote only once since 1988, but they have appointed six out of the last 10 justices. The senators who voted against Barrett represent 13.5 million more people than do the senators who voted for her.

In light of the Trump administration's politicization of the courts, scholars and public commentators have presented several proposals for reform. The first step, however, may be convincing the public of the undemocratic nature and history of the courts.

While trust in American political institutions has long been on the decline, trust in the Supreme Court remains relatively high. A Gallup poll this year found 40 percent of Americans have a "great deal/quite a lot" of confidence in the high court and as many have at least some confidence — but just 17 percent said they have "very little."

By comparison, just 13 percent said they have ample confidence in Congress while 41 percent say they don't have much at all.

Unfortunately, despite widespread faith in the Supreme Court, the institution has not always stood on the side of expanding individual rights and democracy. Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which found segregation constitutional six decades before. Korematsu v. United States upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Buck v. Bell, a 1927 ruling that's never been technically overturned, upheld forced sterilization of those considered "feebleminded."

For its part, the court under Chief Justice John Roberts Court has seriously weakened democratic rights. Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act and ushered in a new era of voter suppression since 2013. Citizens United v. FEC has made it difficult to effectively regulate campaign financing for the past decade. And last year's Rucho v. Common Cause said federal courts had no business placing limits on partisan gerrymandering.

It is worth noting how our system is rare among Western democracies in giving the top court the power to decide what the law is.

Countries including Germany and Portugal have separate constitutional courts — they do not have the same appellate function as our Supreme Court — to protect economic and social rights. In Belgium and Switzerland, courts are constitutionally prohibited from engaging in judicial review. In the Netherlands and Britain, the parliaments have supremacy over the courts. In Canada, the top court can declare that a law violates the national Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but Parliament has the option of passing legislation over the court's objections.

All those systems recognize a conflict at the core of any democratic government: Courts have the ability to protect individual rights, but they are fundamentally undemocratic.

As one of her first acts after becoming the newest Supreme Court justice, Barrett provided the deciding vote in a case that ultimately struck down Gov. Andrew Cuomo's restrictions during a surging coronavirus outbreak on in-person religious gatherings in New York. The case was notable, because five unelected members of the judiciary ultimately interfered with the pandemic response of a democratically elected executive.

In highlighting the troubling history of the Supreme Court, Democrats can put public pressure on judges to respect the will of democratic majorities in the short-term and start building the case for long-term structural changes to the court.

Ultimately, Democrats should make the argument that in a democracy the will of the majority should not be so wholly subjected to nine unelected officials.

From Your Site Articles
  • Congress has plenty to fix, but not the Supreme Court - The Fulcrum ›
  • Will Chief Justice Roberts act to save democracy? - The Fulcrum ›
  • Judges have no role in evaluating partisan gerrymandering ... ›
  • Democrats, experts call on Supreme Court to let some sunshine in ... ›
  • It's time to end life tenure at the Supreme Court - The Fulcrum ›
  • How Divided is the U.S. Supreme Court? - The Fulcrum ›
  • The Supreme Court is broken and needs to be reformed - The Fulcrum ›
  • Beyond the headlines SCOTUS 2021 - 2022 - The Fulcrum ›
  • We must reduce polarization to save the Supreme Court - The Fulcrum ›
  • Without checks on the Supreme Court, there is no balance - The Fulcrum ›
  • Adding justices isn’t the only way to reform Supreme Court - The Fulcrum ›
  • Is the Supreme Court's legitimacy at risk? - The Fulcrum ›
  • Supreme Court docket includes two democracy-defining cases - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • If We Don't Reform the Supreme Court, Nothing Else Will Matter ... ›
  • Should we restructure the Supreme Court? ›
  • Opinion | Three Paths for Reforming the Supreme Court - The New ... ›
  • How to reform the Supreme Court without court-packing - Vox ›
supreme court

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

Reform in 2023: Leadership worth celebrating

Layla Zaidane

Two technology balancing acts

Dave Anderson

Reform in 2023: It’s time for the civil rights community to embrace independent voters

Jeremy Gruber

Congress’ fix to presidential votes lights the way for broader election reform

Kevin Johnson

Democrats and Republicans want the status quo, but we need to move Forward

Christine Todd Whitman

Reform in 2023: Building a beacon of hope in Boston

Henry Santana
Jerren Chang
latest News

Flame retardants in your earbuds? Toxic chemicals in homes? Left and right are sick of It.

Joan Blades
John Gable
17h

What can replace religion for peace of mind and shared moral values?

Daniel O. Jamison
17h

Part IV: Reforming constitutional convention campaigns

J.H. Snider
30 January

Winning GOP strategy in 2024 – back to business with immigration reform

Neil Hare
30 January

Podcast: Separating news from noise

Our Staff
30 January

Podcast: Deepening democracy in the states

Our Staff
27 January
Videos

Video: What the speakership election tells us about the 118th Congress webinar

Our Staff

Video: We need more bipartisan commitment to democracy: Pennsylvania governor

Our Staff

Video: Meet the citizen activists championing primary reform

Our Staff

Video: Veterans for Political Innovation - Who we are

Our Staff

Video: Want to fight polarization? Take a vacation!

Our Staff

Video: Kevin McCarthy is Speaker, but he's got a tough job ahead

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Separating news from noise

Our Staff
30 January

Podcast: Deepening democracy in the states

Our Staff
27 January

Podcast: How the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack impacted politics

Our Staff
26 January

Podcast: Why we misunderstand independent voters

Our Staff
25 January
Recommended
Flame retardants in your earbuds? Toxic chemicals in homes? Left and right are sick of It.

Flame retardants in your earbuds? Toxic chemicals in homes? Left and right are sick of It.

Big Picture
What can replace religion for peace of mind and shared moral values?

What can replace religion for peace of mind and shared moral values?

Big Picture
Video: What the speakership election tells us about the 118th Congress webinar

Video: What the speakership election tells us about the 118th Congress webinar

Congress
Part IV: Reforming constitutional convention campaigns

Part IV: Reforming constitutional convention campaigns

State
Winning GOP strategy in 2024 – back to business with immigration reform

Winning GOP strategy in 2024 – back to business with immigration reform

Big Picture
Podcast: Separating news from noise

Podcast: Separating news from noise

Podcasts