By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
IndebtaIndebta
  • Home
  • News
  • Banking
  • Credit Cards
  • Loans
  • Mortgage
  • Investing
  • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Commodities
    • Crypto
    • Forex
  • Videos
  • More
    • Finance
    • Dept Management
    • Small Business
Notification Show More
Aa
IndebtaIndebta
Aa
  • Banking
  • Credit Cards
  • Loans
  • Dept Management
  • Mortgage
  • Markets
  • Investing
  • Small Business
  • Videos
  • Home
  • News
  • Banking
  • Credit Cards
  • Loans
  • Mortgage
  • Investing
  • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Commodities
    • Crypto
    • Forex
  • Videos
  • More
    • Finance
    • Dept Management
    • Small Business
Follow US
Indebta > News > US Supreme Court’s conservatives solidify power in a polarising term
News

US Supreme Court’s conservatives solidify power in a polarising term

News Room
Last updated: 2023/07/01 at 8:23 AM
By News Room
Share
8 Min Read
SHARE

A year after striking down the constitutional right to abortion, the US Supreme Court’s conservative wing has continued to make a dramatic imprint on American society, all while facing rising scrutiny over questions of legitimacy and ethics.

As has become custom, the court saved its blockbuster decisions for the final days of its legal term, which typically wraps up at the end of June. On Thursday, the court held that college admission programmes taking race into account — a cornerstone of efforts to diversify higher education — violate the constitution.

The next day, it struck down President Joe Biden’s $400bn student debt relief programme, then sided with a Catholic website designer who argued she should not be forced to serve same-sex couples, a decision that dissenting liberals said would pave the way for more anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Decisions in all three cases were split along ideological lines, with the six conservative justices lining up against its liberal wing, in the latest demonstration of how the court’s right-leaning majority has solidified its decision-making power since Amy Coney Barrett took office in October 2020, giving them a 6-3 advantage.

“Each time there is a discernible shift in the balance of power on the court, that tends to be followed by several years of more controversial decisions,” said Michael McConnell, professor at Stanford Law School.

The Supreme Court has often been a polarising institution, with a handful of lifetime appointees delivering consequential decisions on divisive issues. But as the court’s conservative majority has grown bolder, it has attracted more criticism, raising questions about whether changes are needed to arrest its influence.

“I think that some of the court are beginning to realise their legitimacy is being questioned in ways that it hadn’t been questioned in the past,” Biden told MSNBC on Thursday, suggesting that even Chief Justice John Roberts shared the concern. Some Democrats have urged the president to “pack the court” by adding new left-leaning judges to counter the conservatives’ power.

The decision last year to overturn Roe vs Wade, which had enshrined the constitutional right to abortion for nearly 50 years, turbocharged the pushback against the high court as a majority of Americans disagreed with the ruling. Polls at the end of last term showed confidence in the court had plummeted to record lows.

Confidence continued to decline after a pair of ethics scandals embroiled two of the court’s staunchest conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. ProPublica reported earlier this year that Thomas had been the recipient of lavish gifts and hospitality from Harlan Crow, a Republican political donor. Weeks later it reported Paul Singer, a hedge-fund billionaire involved in several cases that went before the court, had paid for Alito to travel on a private jet to Alaska for a fishing trip.

According to a Marquette Law School poll in May, 59 per cent of Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court’s work, after the report about Thomas was released. That was 6 percentage points higher than in January.

Both judges have denied doing anything improper, and said they had made all the disclosures they had believed to be necessary.

Still, the controversies have stirred anger, which was on display at a protest in Washington last month on the anniversary of the Roe reversal. One protester supporting abortion rights held a sign with drawings of Thomas and Alito that read: “It’s called the high court because you can buy justices at 30,000 feet.”

Nadine Seiler, a 58-year-old protester, held a sign reading “Scotus is illegitimate”. The court had “no ethics”, she said. “Unless Roberts stands up and has some kind of ethics for the court, the court is illegitimate.”

Justices file financial disclosure reports annually. But some legal experts argue ethics rules and how they apply to the Supreme Court should be clarified.

“Liberals think that what Thomas and Alito have done is abominable. Conservatives believe that the criticism is ginned up and politically motivated, and if you really look carefully at the facts and the rules that were in effect, there was nothing wrong,” said Jeannie Suk Gersen, professor at Harvard Law School. “It truly is in the eye of the beholder.”

The scandals have piled pressure on Roberts, who has often spoken of the need to preserve the Supreme Court’s institutional integrity.

Following the reports on Thomas, Roberts said the court was considering steps to ensure it would “adhere to the highest standards” of ethical behaviour while maintaining its “status as an independent branch of government”, without elaborating further, according to CBS.

Nevertheless he declined a request from the Senate judiciary committee to testify about Supreme Court ethics, stating in a letter that such testimonies are “exceedingly rare . . . in light of separation of power concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence”.

Adam Mortara, a conservative activist and lawyer, argued that questions about the court’s legitimacy stemmed from disgruntlement about its legal views, pointing out that liberal justices have also faced questions about their disclosures. “It’s not really neutral scrutiny,” he said.

Despite the increasingly polarised perception of the court, some important decisions this term were decided by majorities comprising a mix of liberal and conservative justices. Some legal experts were surprised when the court protected voting rights in a pair of cases in which it sided with lower courts in North Carolina and Alabama that upheld challenges to Republican-drawn electoral maps. Both majority decisions were written by Roberts.

Neil Siegel, professor at the Duke University School of Law, said that until Thursday, “I would have described the term as ideologically quite mixed, less predictable than last term.” But the trio of rulings on student debt, college admissions and the website designer had made the court “predictably very aggressive, very conservative”.

The court has now adjourned for the summer, and in the next term it is likely to continue to steer into controversy. It has already agreed to hear cases on whether people subject to court orders related to domestic violence can possess guns and whether the Securities and Exchange Commission’s in-house judges are legitimate, among others.

The increasingly prevalent view of a polarised Supreme Court reflects the growing political divisions in American society. “Polarisation affects the public’s suspicions, scepticism, criticism of justices,” said Gersen.

In light of this polarisation, “clear rules that are clearly binding will give everyone more peace of mind and certainty as to what is and is not allowed”, she added.

Read the full article here

News Room July 1, 2023 July 1, 2023
Share this Article
Facebook Twitter Copy Link Print
Leave a comment Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Finance Weekly Newsletter

Join now for the latest news, tips, and analysis about personal finance, credit cards, dept management, and many more from our experts.
Join Now
Fed says most policymakers see risks tariffs will cause ‘persistent’ inflation

Stay informed with free updatesSimply sign up to the US inflation myFT…

Revolut in talks to raise new funding at $65bn valuation

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects…

US measles cases surge to highest level since 1992

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects…

Linda Yaccarino steps down as chief executive of X

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects…

EU warns airline delays could be at worst ever this summer

Stay informed with free updatesSimply sign up to the Airlines myFT Digest…

- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

You Might Also Like

News

Fed says most policymakers see risks tariffs will cause ‘persistent’ inflation

By News Room
News

Revolut in talks to raise new funding at $65bn valuation

By News Room
News

US measles cases surge to highest level since 1992

By News Room
News

Linda Yaccarino steps down as chief executive of X

By News Room
News

EU warns airline delays could be at worst ever this summer

By News Room
News

Nvidia becomes first company to reach $4tn in market value

By News Room
News

Live news: Copper market reels as Trump threatens 50% tariff

By News Room
News

Britain, France and the necessary relationship

By News Room
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Youtube Instagram
Company
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Press Release
  • Contact
  • Advertisement
More Info
  • Newsletter
  • Market Data
  • Credit Cards
  • Videos

Sign Up For Free

Subscribe to our newsletter and don't miss out on our programs, webinars and trainings.

I have read and agree to the terms & conditions
Join Community

2023 © Indepta.com. All Rights Reserved.

Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?