Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress needs to fix plenty of things, but not the Supreme Court

Opinion

U.S. Supreme Court
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Rush is a professor of politics and law and director of the center for international education at Washington and Lee University.

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has unleashed calls for institutional overhauls to expand the size of the Supreme Court or limit the time justices can serve — as well as outright threats to pack the bench, depending on who controls the Senate and the White House after November's election.

But the Supreme Court is not the problem.

The fresh cries to "fix the court" are ironic at best and hypocritical at worst. They echo the calls to "impeach Earl Warren" that rang out in the 1950s, after that chief justice wrote the unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared segregated schools unconstitutional.

Then, as now, the problem was not the nation's high court. It was the septic politics — then of segregation, now of raw partisan division — that infected the country.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s, reactions to septic politics were similar to today's calls to fix the Supreme Court. Instead of ostracizing its members who had perpetuated segregation, Congress reorganized the seniority system and created a multitude of new committees and subcommittees. Instead of taking a stand against segregationist senators and House members — other than rejecting their ideology to enact landmark voting rights and civil rights legislation — Congress replaced a few of the committee fiefdoms they'd controlled with a multitude of new ones. And that made Capitol Hill a much more difficult place to lead or control. So politics remained septic.

Similarly, to "fix" the electoral system, Congress enacted campaign spending laws that essentially privatized the election process and set in motion the forces that now make elections extraordinarily expensive, uncompetitive and gerrymandered to perpetuate control by the two major parties.

Instead of bridging political divisions, Congress enacted institutional reforms that simply proliferated the number of divisions and deepened them. The two major parties are as polarized as ever, more internally divided than ever -- and still comfortably ensconced in power thanks to campaign finance laws that discriminate against third parties and independent candidates.

As Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution has written, the nation continues to pay the price for these so-called reforms. They created the political system that enabled Donald Trump to beat the Republicans and then beat the Democrats. It remains possible he could do it again this November. "Fixing" the Supreme Court by limiting tenure or adding seats will do nothing to overcome the political divisions or fix the political machinery that elevated and has sustained the incumbent president.

More likely, any such rushed alterations would have the sort of undesirable and unforeseen consequences that inevitably arise from hastily conceived policies that are driven more by partisan fervor than by wisdom.

So let's leave the Supreme Court alone. Despite the debasement of the confirmation process that began with President Ronald Reagan's failed nomination of Robert Bork 33 years ago, the court still operates collegially and effectively. Despite the complaints about how Republican appointees now dominate the bench, abortion remains a right, the Affordable Care Act has not been struck down, gay marriage is constitutionally protected and employers may not discriminate against people based on gender or sexuality. Perennially, the court receives the highest approval ratings among the branches of the federal government.

Instead of overhauling the Supreme Court, perhaps lawmakers and other aspiring fixers might first give Congress itself some homework. Before turning on the court, perhaps Congress could first demonstrate a capacity to put partisanship aside and pursue an agenda that is unquestionably bipartisan and clearly in the national interest. A better coronavirus testing plan? Perhaps a dollar-a-gallon additional federal tax on gasoline to cut greenhouse emissions and support sustainability research? Maybe a fix for the public schools?

The Supreme Court is not broken. So don't fix it. Instead, Congress should demonstrate that it can choose to fix the politics and policies that need fixing.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less