Apolitical or adversely political: the debate surrounding the partisan nature of US Supreme Court | Research News,The Indian Express
Up till the 1960s, US Supreme Court justices were either former politicians or aspiring politicians. They advised presidents and members of Congress, participated in political debates, and were expected to hold strong political opinions. Why then are we only now experiencing fervent allegations of partiality?
Many Americans reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade with dismay and terror, not only because of what it meant for abortion rights, but because of what it signalled could be next. In a preview for the Court’s potential future rulings, conservative justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Court should reconsider due process precedents including how they previously applied to cases concerning contraceptive access and LGBTQ rights.
While Thomas’ fellow justices have not openly backed his views, many fear that the right-wing majority Court may threaten hard-won freedoms by implicitly welcoming conservative lawmakers from different states to pass legislation that violate the Court’s past decisions, with the intent of facilitating lawsuits that allow it to potentially reverse those rulings.
The Court’s actions over the last few months are in keeping with the events of the past decade which have catapulted the nation’s highest court into a crisis of legitimacy. Commenting on the matter, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned that the country is “witnessing a judicial coup” and is in the midst of a “constitutional crisis.”
According to one Gallup poll, the reason for such pessimism is the presumed, increasing impartiality of the Court. That in turn begs the question, was the Supreme Court ever an apolitical body, and if so, what has thrust it towards such a precarious tipping point in the minds of the public.
Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barret and Stephen Breyer have often lamented the public perception of the Court as being overtly political. Yet, despite their protests, the public thinks otherwise.
Rating: 5