Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The third political branch of government

The third political branch of government

The United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

bloodua/Getty Images

Goldstone is the author of the forthcoming "Not White Enough: The Long Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment."

In a recent Washington Post opinion piece, Ruth Marcus castigated the Supreme Court’s conservative majority for allowing their originalist legal philosophy to contribute to the “insane state of Second Amendment law” by ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that “ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.”


While Marcus is correct that Second Amendment law is currently too absurd for even Samuel Beckett, she errs in pinning the blame on originalism, or in fact on any body of legal theory. The justices did not rule the way they did in Bruen, or its predecessor District of Columbia v. Heller, or in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization or Citizens United for that matter, to adhere to deeply held views of law and justice, but rather because of a political agenda into which legal philosophy was shoe-horned to fit.

Court critics make a grievous error by turning these outlandish and contrived legal constructions into debate topics for law school seminars. It masks the true problem with the federal court system in general and the Supreme Court in particular—they have evolved into a political body, a government within a government, accountable to no one, either in Congress, the presidency, or among the citizenry.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

By not attacking this question straight on, pundits and legal scholars have allowed the justices to equivocate their way past the issue. Their straight-faced denials begin at confirmation hearings, which have become a glorified reality show, sort of “The Real Judges of Capitol Hill.” As Senator Charles Grassley observed during Samuel Alito’s confirmation, with either a wink and a nod or stunning naivete, “Like Chief Justice Roberts, it appears that Judge Alito tries to act like an umpire, calling the balls and strikes, rather than advocating a particular outcome.” Vast swathes of Americans, many with unwanted pregnancies, should feel extremely distressed that Justice Alito has been allowed to umpire a game in which they have been forced to play. Then there is Brett Kavanaugh, who called Roe v. Wade “settled law” in the same hearings in which he assured senators that he only occasionally had a beer or two. Finally, of course, there is Clarence Thomas, who happily played the race card, calling his hearings “a high-tech lynching,” before going on at every opportunity to rule against the same racial preferencing from which he had benefited his entire career.

High school students used to be taught in civics class—when there was a civics class—that there were “two political branches of government” from which the third, the judiciary, stood apart. It was not true then and it is less so now.

The Court has put its political agenda ahead of the law many times in American history to devastating effect, none more so than at the end of the nineteenth century, when, in a series of atrocious decisions, the justices disemboweled both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, leaving them unable to offer the protections to Black Americans for which they had been created in the first place.

In one especially egregious example, in 1874, Associate Justice Joseph P. Bradley took on the Fifteenth Amendment, which had been drafted specifically to guarantee voting rights to Black Americans. But Bradley concluded the amendment, “confers no right to vote. That is the exclusive prerogative of the states. It does confer a right not to be excluded from voting by reason of race, color or previous condition of servitude, and this is all the right that Congress can enforce.”

Bradley’s linguistic tap dance was precisely what equal rights advocates had feared, and it totally changed both the amendment’s meaning and its potential as a tool for the federal government to protect Black voters. Under Bradley’s definition, if an African American was threatened, beaten, and his house burned to the ground in order to terrorize him into not voting, and the state refused to prosecute the offenders, the federal government could do nothing unless the victim could prove that the actions were motivated only by race.

Bradley had thus transferred the burden of proof from the state to demonstrate it had not discriminated to the individual whose right to vote had been denied to demonstrate that it had. That task was difficult enough, but had the potential, which was fully realized, to become virtually impossible depending on the standard of proof the Court would require. Bradley’s opinion and a number of others, most notably Oliver Wendell Holmes’s in Giles v. Harris in 1903, ushered in decades of almost total voter suppression and the horrors of Jim Crow.

The impetus for Bradley’s opinion, and the others that robbed Black Americans of their constitutional rights, was simple. White America, including white Supreme Court justices, did not want Black citizens on equal footing, and if the law and even the Constitution said different, then the law and Constitution must be overruled.

And so, in a series of decisions spanning almost three decades, the Supreme Court announced that it considered popular will and its own notions of racial hierarchy more compelling than the promise of equality under the Constitution. On the altar of strict adherence to the law, they ruled time and again to deny fundamental rights to Black Americans and rewrote Constitutional amendments to suit white America’s racial attitudes.

Americans today face the same dictatorial rule from unelected ideologues serving for life—although they should not be—who are immune from oversight. As “Brutus” wrote in 1788, opposing ratification of the Constitution, “the opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal.”

Then as now, the Court did not render its decisions to conform to the law but rather contorted the law to conform to its decisions. The real problem with judges who claim to be “originalists” is that originalism is not so much a legal philosophy as a construct to allow its adherents to pass off personal prejudice as law.

Conservatives have decried the accusation that among the current roster of justices are those who are merely “politicians in robes.” They are correct. Politicians are far less powerful.

Read More

Elderly woman on a train

A woman evacuating from Pokrovsk, Ukraine, in August looks out from a train car to say goodbye.

Oleksandr Magula/Suspilne Ukraine/JSC "UA:PBC"/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images

On Ageism Awareness Day, consider the impact of war on the elderly

Kilaberia is an assistant professor at New York University’s Silver School of Social Work and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

We know the toll that war has on youth, but older adults are suffering displacement, too.

We have talked about age-friendly cities, age-friendly health care systems, age-friendly universities, age-friendly workplaces dementia-friendly communities. We are not talking about age-friendly or dementia-friendly humanitarian responses.

Tomorrow is Ageism Awareness Day and it offers us the opportunity to draw attention to the impact of ageism, particularly in the many war zones around the world.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino couple

"Women's rights are super important to me because women raised me. Women brought me into this world,” said Rico Cortez, with his mother, Rebececca Guerrero.

Courtesy Rico Cortez

Latino families in Nevada are a deciding factor this election cycle

Couraud is a bilingual multimedia journalist.

The Fulcrum presents We the People, a series elevating the voices and visibility of the persons most affected by the decisions of elected officials. In this installment, we explore the motivations of over 36 million eligible Latino voters as they prepare to make their voices heard in November.

According to the NALEO Education Fund,Latinos make up 28 percent of Nevada's population, and one in every five registered voters in the state is Latino. With Nevada being a crucial swing state in November's election, the Latino vote has become increasingly important.

Although Nevada has a sitting U.S. senator who is Latina (Catherine Cortez-Masto), Latino political representation still lags. This could explain why some Latino voters feel discouraged or why — despite such high population numbers — Latino voter turnout is lower than that of other demographics in the state.

Keep ReadingShow less
Where young voters can have the greatest impact in 2024

Liz Michalkiewicz was 29 when she voted in Milwaukee in 2022. Wisconsin is among the states where voters under age 30 can have the biggest impact this year.

Sara Stathas for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Where young voters can have the greatest impact in 2024

Meyers is executive editor of The Fulcrum.

It’s common knowledge among the politically engaged that the presidential election is going to come down to a handful of states. The same goes for control of the Senate, while just a couple dozen districts will determine which party wins a majority in the House of Representatives.

But which voters will decide the winner in each of those states and districts? While there may not be one, across-the-board answer, researchers at Tufts University have identified the places where young voters (ages 18-29) can have the most influence on electoral outcomes this year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mark Zuckerberg holding a pair of glasses

Mark Zuckerberg, who is now worth more than $200 billion, shows off new wearabel tech at the Meta Connect developer conference in September.

Andrej Sokolow/picture alliance via Getty Images

We have extreme inequality in America, and it’s getting worse

Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.

Bloomberg recently reported that Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg is now worth over $200 billion. He’s not alone. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Tesla founder Elon Musk, and LVMH founder Bernard Arnault are also worth north of $200 billion.

The news is a searing reminder of the uneven distribution of wealth in America. In the same country as Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk reside millions of people without a reliable source of food. (Arnault lives in France.) Redistributing just a small portion of the richest Americans’ wealth could alleviate tremendous human suffering.

Keep ReadingShow less
A roll of stickers that read "I registered to vote today!"
Bloomberg Creative/Getty Images

Become an informed voter – it’s the best way to fight voter suppression

Harris is director of media engagement at Stand Up America.

This is National Voter Education Week, when activists and organizations across the country mobilize to educate voters on how to make their voices heard in November. This year, that mission is more important than ever. While voting rights advocates are hard at work helping voters find their polling location and voting options, learn what’s on their ballot, and make a plan for voting, MAGA politicians are ramping up efforts to make it more difficult to vote and even purging voter rolls in battleground states.

Keep ReadingShow less