The nature of the Supreme Court allows it to be overtaken by certain groups, and conservatives are using it to their advantage. They have solidified judicial power so harmful presences like former President Donald Trump can live on in the government. We see this through the decisions the Supreme Court recently made, such as overturning Roe v. Wade and declaring affirmative action unconstitutional.
Trump’s Impact
Trump incited the Jan. 6 insurrection, rolled back over 100 environmental regulations, denied COVID-19 and spread misinformation about the virus. Though he’s no longer in office, his presidency has lasting impacts, considerably through the Supreme Court.
Trump nominated three conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. These justices make up a third of the Supreme Court. He nominated the most justices by any one-term president since the 1930s. They were approved by the Senate’s simple majority, but the people had no say in these justice appointments.
To have a justice confirmed, the Senate must be on the President’s side. Sen. Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators blocked Obama’s last justice appointment, Justice Merrick Garland. They refused to even hold a hearing for a replacement justice until the next president was elected.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who fought for women’s rights, had one dying wish — not to be replaced until a new president was elected. Trump ignored her wish and selected Amy Coney Barrett, the ideological opposite of Ginsburg. The Senate Republicans who blocked Obama’s appointment rushed Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation just before Trump’s presidency ended.
Justice Barrett, an anti-abortion conservative, tipped the Court rightward. The difference of one justice should not be able to alter the Supreme Court as significantly as it does. And McConnell should not have had the power to block or rush nominees into the Supreme Court.
Corruption in the Court
Through McConnell’s hijacking of seats, it’s clear that the process of appointing Supreme Court justices can be unfair.
When consulted over email, RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Utah, offered expertise on the topic. “The Court very much wants to be perceived by the public as apolitical, but this gets much harder when politicians campaign on promises of appointing justices who will take particular positions on divisive issues,” she said. These promises politicians make matter because what the Supreme Court says, goes. The United States is going backward. The Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, and declared affirmative action unconstitutional this year, which will leave many groups behind.
The justices making these decisions can be appointed despite alleged crimes if the President and Senate want them confirmed. Multiple women have accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Trump backed Kavanaugh and tried to limit the FBI’s investigation into the justice. After a superficial investigation, Kavanaugh was confirmed into the Supreme Court. This speaks to a larger issue — our government does not take sexual assault allegations seriously.
The level of corruption in the Supreme Court can be seen through other justices as well. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito broke ethics rules, accepting luxury vacations and expensive gifts without disclosing them. All nine justices implicitly backed Justice Thomas after the accusations in a letter written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
It Doesn’t Represent Us
The Supreme Court doesn’t represent the American public. Rather, it represents the average Republican voter, three professors found through polling research. Public support for it is plunging. According to a 2022 survey, only 18% of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the Court. Over half of U.S. adults disagreed with Roe v. Wade’s reversal. And in May, the majority of Americans believed the Supreme Court should not prohibit consideration of race in college admissions.
If we reformed the Supreme Court, Americans might regain trust in it. One reform Andersen Jones suggested was that “the Court be more transparent about its decision-making process or have a clearer set of ethics rules buffering it from outside influence.”
Equal Justice Under Law
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved ethics legislation for the Supreme Court, which is a good change. However, it is not enough. According to a recent AP article, Justice Samuel Alito took a public stand against Congress ethics rules proposals. He stated that “no provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.” The justices themselves feel that they are above regulations. This is a clear sign that the Court needs reform.
The responsibility of the Supreme Court is to provide “equal justice under the law.” But there is no equality in the way the justices are appointed, nor in their interpretations of the law. Regressive Supreme Court decisions aren’t a new phenomenon. From Dred Scott v. Sandford to Plessy v. Ferguson, it has let down minority groups for a long time. And while we’ve made progress since those rulings, a lot more must be done. We won’t surrender to the conservative Supreme Court, so something has to change.
Scholars argue that we should increase the number of justices and limit their terms. Kermit Roosevelt III, who was on President Biden’s Supreme Court commission, wrote that we should impose “staggered 18-year terms so that each president gets two appointments per four-year term.” There is no need for lifetime tenure.
We also must expand the Court. The number of justices is not written in the Constitution and has changed six times before. In May, Democratic senators and representatives began to push for this. They reintroduced an act that would expand the Supreme Court by four seats to balance its conservative tilt and “restore its legitimacy.”
The way the Supreme Court is set up has allowed conservative politicians and justices to use their power to harm, abandoning women, people of color and queer people. It is taking more power from the people than it is providing, and it must change.
