After the controversial ruling on abortion last summer, it was expected that there would be criticism directed towards the Supreme Court. The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which stated that there is no constitutional right to abortion, went against a widely supported precedent and took away a right that millions of people valued. This sparked a significant backlash, unlike anything the Court had seen in decades.
What is more surprising and difficult to understand is the intense backlash to the Supreme Court’s recent term, which began in October 2022 and concluded this summer. This term included a total of 60 cases, with 13 of them considered significant by the nonpartisan National Constitution Center. These cases demonstrate a Court that is largely aligned with public opinion and where justices form shifting alliances across ideological lines.
However, critics on the left have interpreted this term in a completely different way. They view center-right rulings as further proof of the Supreme Court’s terrible decisions and question its legitimacy. President Joe Biden described it as an unconventional court that has undone more basic rights and decisions than any other Court in recent history. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused the Supreme Court of pushing their right-wing ideology onto the American people. Representative Ro Khanna criticized the Court for being out of touch with various rights and issues. The New Republic’s editor, Michael Tomasky, went so far as to claim that the Court is out of control.
Even a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, Mark Tushnet, took the extraordinary step of urging President Biden to disregard Supreme Court rulings at his own discretion, in an attempt to limit the influence of conservative justices. However, this argument is as misguided as the statements made by Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Eastman, before the January 6 riots. It undermines the rule of law and risks a constitutional crisis.
While the Supreme Court is not immune to criticism, the exaggerated response to its rulings in 2023 is misleading and does not accurately portray what actually happened. Personally, I often disagree with the Court’s members and their majorities. I also believe that justices should be required to report any significant gifts or free travel and that fixed terms would be preferable over lifelong appointments. However, it is crucial to provide an accurate analysis of the Court’s rulings without resorting to hyperbole.
Contrary to the exaggerated claims, the majority decisions in 2023 were not driven solely by partisan interests. In fact, the Court issued multiple significant rulings where justices appointed by presidents from different parties were both in the majority and minority. Many GOP-appointed justices ruled against the actions of GOP legislators. The Court primarily ruled in accordance with public opinion, with only one ruling significantly straying from it.
Furthermore, the Court’s judicial reasoning and outcomes demonstrate that the justices are more influenced by liberal values rather than extremist or right-wing values. They protected election integrity and voting rights, decisions that were praised by many Democrats. Additionally, the Court prevented powerful institutions from discriminating against racial minority groups and curbed a president who exceeded his authority by forgiving debt in a way that disproportionately benefited the wealthy.
Overall, the majority decisions of 2023 were the result of careful legal analysis and practical considerations. While individuals may disagree with these decisions, they provide no basis for questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Those who do so are not only misleading the public but also acting shortsightedly and imprudently.
In the voting-rights cases of Allen v. Milligan and Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court addressed the conflicts between Republican-controlled state legislatures and litigants who claimed that these legislatures were undermining the fairness of elections. In both cases, the Court ruled against the GOP-controlled legislatures, which contradicts the notion that the Court is a right-wing institution advancing partisan interests. Similarly, in United States v. Texas, the Court ruled against two other Republican-controlled states.
The affirmative action cases of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina also deserve attention. The majority opinion in these cases struck down colleges’ ability to engage in racial discrimination under the guise of affirmative action. While there may be differing opinions on the scope of this decision, it is clear that the Court made the right call by rejecting racial discrimination based on Asian ancestry.
Ultimately, it is important to recognize the complexities of the Court’s rulings and not exaggerate their significance. The Court’s decisions were based on legal reasoning and practical considerations, whether or not one agrees with them. It is crucial to provide an accurate and level-headed analysis of the Court’s actions, rather than engaging in sensationalism and questioning its legitimacy.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
