Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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.

Read More

America and the Magic Order of US

Lady Liberty

Provided by Sarah Beckerman

America and the Magic Order of US

Part I - The Ministry Denies It

Like many true elder millennials, I find comfort in escaping into fantasy worlds – Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars. But lately, these stories haven’t just been a break from the chaos of real life. They’ve become a lens for understanding it. They remind me what courage looks like when the odds are stacked, and what it means to stand up, not just to threats to justice, but to silence, complicity, and fear.

Lately, I’ve been thinking less about the final battles, the catharsis, the clarity, the triumphant arrival of friends. We’re not there yet. Not even close. What I keep returning to is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the part of the story where everything tightens. The danger is real. The protagonists are scattered. The institutions are eroding. And the air gets heavy with denial and dread.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nevada House Speaker Says It's Time to Give the State's Largest Voting Bloc Access to Primaries

Las Vegas, Nevada sign

Photo by Grant Cai on Unsplash.

Nevada House Speaker Says It's Time to Give the State's Largest Voting Bloc Access to Primaries

LAS VEGAS, NEV. - Nevada’s largest registered voting bloc – unaffiliated voters – could soon gain access to the state’s taxpayer-funded primaries, if a new bill from Democratic Nevada House Speaker Steve Yeager becomes law.

The bill, AB597, was introduced Monday with one week left in the session. It gives registered unaffiliated voters the option to submit an online request for a party's primary ballot no later than 14 days ahead of a primary or during in-person voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Eliminating HIV Prevention Is a Public Health Crisis

A vaccine bottle and syringe for an injection preventing HIV.

Getty Images, Kitsawet Saethao

Eliminating HIV Prevention Is a Public Health Crisis

The Trump administration is planning to eliminate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Division of HIV Prevention. The collapse of HIV prevention will mean 143,000 additional people in the United States will acquire HIV in the next five years. We are on the cusp of a public health crisis.

The most recent attack on the reproductive health center in Palm Springs is a wake-up call to what could be to come if we continue to be bystanders in the erasure of reproductive and sexual health rights. A profound crack in an already fragile public health infrastructure continues to grow as government officials consider eliminating vital public health structures that monitor health trends, outbreaks, and our ability to prepare and respond to an ongoing HIV epidemic.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s

Donald Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th President of the United States.

Getty Images, Pool

Congress Bill Spotlight: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

President Donald Trump falsely claimed his January 6, 2021 speech preceding the Capitol Building riot “had more people” in attendance than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Keep ReadingShow less