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.

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

Hope, Champagne, and the Courage To Celebrate in Turbulent Times
Getty Images, wilatlak villette

Hope, Champagne, and the Courage To Celebrate in Turbulent Times

“There is hope, a way forward, however unpredictable. We can dance around the petulant games of powerful men. But, as ever, we are at the mercy of the seasons.” - Widow Clicquot

“Widow Clicquot,” adapted from a book by Tilar J. Mazzeo, is the story of Barbe Nicole Clicquot Ponsardin, widowed in 1805 at the age of 27, who inherited her husband’s debt-ridden vineyards. Against all odds, particularly as women had virtually no economic “value” or power in the early 19th century, she, and her vineyards, eventually prospered. It was she who created the Veuve Clicquot champagne dynasty.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Ben Bain
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Ben Bain

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Ben Bain, Director of State Capacity at the Niskanen Institute and Volunteer Coordinator in Washington, DC, for More Perfect Union, a bridging organization—where we originally met.

Keep ReadingShow less

Angelica Salas’s Journey From Undocumented Immigrant to Community Leader at CHIRLA

Angelica Salas has long been a leading advocate for immigrant rights in Los Angeles. Since becoming Executive Director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) in 1999, she has transformed the organization into one of the most powerful immigrant-led advocacy groups in the country. Her leadership has redefined what grassroots organizing can look like, mobilizing communities around issues ranging from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to voter outreach and legal services.

Salas’s journey into activism is deeply personal. Born in Durango, Mexico, she arrived in the United States at the age of five, undocumented, to reunite with her parents who had migrated for work. Growing up in Pasadena, California, her family lived in the shadows of deportation until they were able to legalize their status. In 2008, Salas became a U.S. citizen, adding a powerful chapter to a story she shares with many of the people CHIRLA serves. Her own experience navigating the U.S. immigration system informs her commitment to building dignity, not dependency, in the immigrant rights movement. After graduating from Occidental College with a degree in history and sociology, Salas joined CHIRLA in 1995 and became its executive director just four years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
This Isn’t My Story. But It’s One I’ll Never Forget.

Children with American flags

This Isn’t My Story. But It’s One I’ll Never Forget.

My colleague, Meghan Monroe, a former teacher and trainer in the Dignity Index, went out to lunch with a friend on the 4th of July. Her friend was late and Meghan found herself waiting outside the restaurant where, to her surprise, a protest march approached. It wasn’t big and it wasn’t immediately clear what the protest was about. There were families and children marching—some flags, and some signs about America being free.

One group of children caught Meghan’s eye as they tugged at their mother while marching down the street. The mom paused and crouched down to speak to the children. Somehow, Meghan could read the situation and realized that the mom was explaining to the children about America—about what it is, about all the different people who make up America, about freedom, about dignity.

“I could just tell that the Mom wanted her children to understand something important, something big. I couldn’t tell anything about her politics. I could just tell that she wanted her children to understand what America can be. I could tell she wanted dignity for her children and for people in this country. It was beautiful.”

As Meghan told me this story, I realized something: that Mom at the protest is a role model for me. The 4th may be over now, but the need to explain to each other what we want for ourselves and our country isn’t.

My wife, Linda, and I celebrated America at the wedding of my godson, Alexander, and his new wife, Hannah. They want America to be a place of love. Dozens of my cousins, siblings, and children celebrated America on Cape Cod.

For them and our extended family, America is a place where families create an enduring link from one generation to the next despite loss and pain.

Thousands of Americans in central Texas confronted the most unimaginable horrors on July 4th. For them, I hope and pray America is a place where we hold on to each other in the face of unbearable pain and inexplicable loss.

Yes. It’s complicated. There were celebrations of all kinds on July 4th—celebrations of gratitude to our military, celebrations of gratitude for nature and her blessings, and sadly, celebrations of hatred too. There are a million more examples of our hopes and fears and visions, and they’re not all happy.

I bet that’s one of the lessons that mom was explaining to her children. I imagine her saying, “America is a place where everyone matters equally. No one’s dignity matters more than anyone else’s. Sometimes we get it wrong. But in our country, we always keep trying and we never give up.”

For the next 12 months as we lead up to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we’re going to be hearing a lot about what we want America to be. But maybe the more important question is what we the people are willing to do to fulfill our vision of what we can be. The answer to that question is hiding in plain sight and is as old as the country itself: join with others and do your part, and no part is too small to matter.

At our best, our country is a country of people who serve one another. Some may say that’s out of fashion, but not me. Someone is waiting for each of us—to talk, to share, to join, to care, to lead, to love. And in our time, the superpower we need is the capacity to treat each other with dignity, even when we disagree. Differences of opinion aren’t the problem; in fact, they’re the solution. As we love to say, “There’s no America without democracy and there’s no democracy without healthy debate and there’s no healthy debate without dignity.”

Keep ReadingShow less