Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Supreme Court's role in our partisan polarization has been greatly exaggerated

Supreme Court justices
Pool/Getty Images

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the Supreme Court, like the country, is deeply divided along partisan and ideological lines. But this overlooks the court's historic recent run of unanimous decisions and the fact that the liberal and conservative justices often don't vote as blocs.


Court critics tend to respond to these inconvenient realities by saying something like, "Sure, but on the big cases, the culturally divisive ones, the conservatives form the majority and the liberals the dissenting minority."

This is obviously true sometimes. The Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is a paradigmatic example. While I think Dobbs was correctly decided on the merits, it also was an important, polarizing ruling along ideological lines.

I'm happy to concede that, but why can't critics concede the reverse? When the court doesn't rule along ideological lines on important cases, they simply stop calling the cases important. As legal analyst Sarah Isgur (my colleague at the Dispatch) and economist Dean Jens recently put it in Politico, "If one defines 'important' as the most politically divisive, then it becomes circular." Which cases are divisive? The important ones. Which cases are important? The divisive ones.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Last year, the court accepted a case brought by antiabortion doctors seeking to reverse the Food and Drug Administration's relaxation of restrictions on the abortion drug mifepristone. In the wake of Dobbs, many understandably thought the case was important and divisive.

Last week, however, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the pro-abortion-rights position. If you listened closely, you could almost hear throngs of pro-abortion-rights court critics whispering, "Never mind."

Gun rights are another obvious example of partisan polarization. And last week, the Supreme Court issued a decision on the subject along the dreaded conservative-liberal axis. All six Republican-appointed justices voted to overturn a ban on bump stocks, which for practical purposes convert legal semiautomatic weapons into automatic weapons akin to machine guns, which have been illegal for 100 years.

The bump stock ban was imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under then-President Trump in the wake of the monstrous 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. So the supposedly partisan Republican justices overturned a Republican administration's reinterpretation of the law, while the Democratic appointees voted to uphold it. It was in that sense another example of a decision that doesn't tidily fit the conventional storyline.

Still, liberal critics of the court immediately denounced the conservative majority's originalist zealotry, while right-wingers celebrated a "major win" for the Second Amendment, in the words of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. But the case had little to do with the Second Amendment.

Rather, the court rightly held that the Trump administration couldn't unilaterally rewrite the established meaning of a statute banning machine guns to include bump stocks. If Trump is reelected, you can imagine many liberals suddenly looking more favorably on the idea that presidents can't unilaterally rewrite the law.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s concurrence with the majority opinion gets to the crux of the problem. Referring to the Las Vegas shooting, Alito wrote that "an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law's meaning.

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machine guns. Congress can amend the law -- and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act."

What Alito is getting at is that Congress isn't doing its job. The president is supposed to faithfully execute the law -- hence the "executive branch" -- and Congress, the legislative branch, is supposed to write the law. Both parties have colluded over decades to ignore this basic division of labor.

When the Trump administration banned bump stocks, it was responding to public pressure. But it was also protecting Republican legislators from being forced to take a hard vote in response to that public pressure.

Whether it's forgiving student loans, banning bump stocks, controlling the border or setting trade policy, Congress doesn't want the responsibility -- or the accountability -- that comes with being a legislature. So its members let the White House and the courts do their job for them, relishing the chance to gripe when they do it wrong or take credit when they do it right. This reliance on the other branches raises the stakes of presidential elections and judicial confirmations.

Yes, polarization is part of the reason for Congress' dysfunction. But Congress' dysfunction also drives polarization.

(C)2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read More

Ken Powley
Team Democracy

Meet the change leaders: Ken Powley

Nevins is co-publisher ofThe Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of theBridge Alliance Education Fund.

Ken Powley and Chris Newlon founded Team Democracy in early 2021. Its signature initiative is the nonpartisan Safe and Fair Election Pledge. The pledge is designed to create an important piece of common ground where Americans — including their elected representatives — can join together from opposite sides of the aisle in committing themselves to protecting the most essential guardrails of American democracy: safe and fair elections, and the peaceful transfer of power.

Keep ReadingShow less

Meet the change leaders: Pearce Godwin

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Pearce Godwin is founder of the Listen First Project and the #ListenFirst Coalition of 500 organizations bringing Americans together across differences to listen, understand each other and discover common interests.

He catalyzes the movement to save America from toxic polarization by shifting social norms from division, distrust, contempt and violence toward connection, understanding and belonging. Pearce manages large-scale, co-created endeavors such as Meeting of America and the annual National Week of Conversation to engage as many Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs as possible to turn down the heat and find a way forward together.

Keep ReadingShow less
‘Stories about the way the nation is organized are dividing us’: A conversation with Richard Slotkin

‘Stories about the way the nation is organized are dividing us’: A conversation with Richard Slotkin

Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the 11th in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."

Is the United States on the brink of a civil war? Few people are better placed to answer that question than historian Richard Slotkin.

Slotkin, an emeritus professor at Wesleyan University, has devoted his career to the study of violence and American history. In an award-winning trilogy of books (“Regeneration Through Violence,” “The Fatal Environment,” and “Gunfighter Nation”), Slotkin explained how the myth of the American frontier — the idea that violence against a racialized other must be employed to conquer the wilderness and make way for civilization — has been used to justify government action across the history of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tim Walz speaking at a rally

The Dignity Index scored politicians, such as Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, on their language.

Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images

Bipartisan citizens panel issues new Dignity Index scores

UNITE, a nonprofit created to ease the country's political divisions, on Sept. 20 released the second round of scores from its national citizen's panel analyzing political speech. The latest results offer support for founder Tim Shriver's idea of a political "dignity strategy."

"When our political parties use the contempt strategy — demonizing their opponents to energize their supporters — it has an unintended effect," said Shriver, who founded UNITE in 2018. "It turns away the voters they need to win. The candidate that can treat the other side with dignity has a better chance of winning the swing voters who may decide this election."

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debating

"The contempt strategy demands that you look down on the other side, make fun of them, call them names, question their motives, attack their character and mock their values," writes Shriver, who argues that It's time to try something different.

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The contempt strategy can change

Shriver is the chairman of Special Olympics, founder and CEO of UNITE, and co-creator of the Dignity Index.

On Sept. 17, I went on Fox News to talk about a “dignity strategy” that I designed with my Dignity Index co-creator, Tom Rosshirt. We think it could make a difference for any candidate willing to take it up. What do you think?

It is a late-game strategy that could help either candidate win the White House, but it’s something neither has tried before because it’s the absolute opposite of the typical political playbook.

Keep ReadingShow less