Activists opposed to the confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, dressed as characters from “The Handmaid’s Tale,” protest at the Supreme Court on a foggy Thursday, Oct. 22, in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Activists opposed to the confirmation of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, dressed as characters from “The Handmaid’s Tale,” protest at the Supreme Court on a foggy Thursday, Oct. 22, in Washington. (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Viewpoints: How to keep Supreme Court above the partisan fray

It has sometimes seemed out of step with the electorate; here’s how it can preserve its legitimacy.

By Bruce Peabody / For The Conversation

On the first day of confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris framed the nomination as part of a plan to subvert democratic values.

The rushed nomination process goes against the wishes of “a clear majority of Americans” who want Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat filled only after the new presidential term begins in January 2021, according to Harris. Instead, Harris charged, Barrett’s supporters were “trying to bypass the will of the voters” and seeking to “have the Supreme Court do their dirty work” by undoing popular legislation, including the Affordable Care Act.

As I have shown in my prior research, this is the latest in a growing wave of criticism leveled by elected officials, scholars and other commentators who question the legitimacy of the U.S. judiciary.

These skeptics say that controversial court decisions, a partisan judiciary and a broken process for appointing judges should be cured with moves such as packing the Supreme Court with additional justices or imposing judicial term limits.

Courts need the public’s support; their power is based on it. Lacking their own army or police force, courts rely on people’s faith in their authority and fairness to enforce their judgments. Without this, our independent judicary is in trouble.

A benchmark of American politics: These worries are not new or limited to one party.

In only their second decade of existence — from 1801, when Thomas Jefferson became president, to 1805, when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was acquitted of impeachment charges — U.S. courts faced a crisis when Republicans aligned with President Jefferson complained that the Federalist Party was seeding the courts with its partisans.

Jefferson believed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, appointed by Federalist stalwart John Adams, held “anti-democratic” beliefs. Jefferson planned to impeach and remove judges like Marshall and replace them with his own party appointments, an effort that ultimately foundered.

Clashes between federal courts and the party in power are baked into American politics.

As judicial scholar Charles Geyh has shown, presidents usually “install ideologically compatible judges.” But during realigning elections, large blocks of voters switch their allegiance from one party to another.

This process sweeps out repudiated parties in Congress and the White House, but it can leave us with the prior administration’s “holdover” judges, who then get accused of being illegitimate and anti-democratic.

At the turn of the 19th century, populists and progressives attacked free-market-oriented and pro-business judges on such issues as child labor and worker’s rights.

More famously, Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed his court-packing plan after butting heads with a Supreme Court dominated by justices appointed by his predecessors who were skeptical of the New Deal.

It’s too early to say whether the U.S. is in the midst of an electoral realignment. But over the last four years, President Trump has seized his opportunity to shape the courts.

If Judge Barrett is successfully appointed, in one term, Trump will have filled more seats on the Supreme Court than any president since Ronald Reagan. Given this influence, and the president’s unpopularity, it’s no surprise that many Democrats warn that the judiciary will be out of step with the rest of America.

How courts can reinforce their standing: While recent polling finds an uptick in the percentage of Americans who approve of “the way the Supreme Court is handling its job,” the general trend line shows a public that has, according to the FiveThirtyEight news site, “slowly become more disillusioned” with the high court over the past three decades.

But should anyone care? Isn’t the very purpose of an independent judiciary to make its decisions with little regard for public opinion and what Alexander Hamilton called the “ill humors in the society”?

The truth is, the courts need public support. Judges depend upon national and local officials to uphold their opinions, such as clerks issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Law enforcement officials are required by the Supreme Court to provide certain suspects with Miranda warnings.

And if the people on the losing end of court decisions believe judges are unfairly appointed and partisan, they may dismiss their judgments as illegitimate. That threatens the sense of unity and stability that Chief Justice John Roberts has said the judiciary must provide in our polarized age.

Fortunately, research points to several ways courts can bolster their standing, so that when they inevitably issue controversial decisions they can withstand the ensuing storm.

People, for example, are more likely to accept unfavorable judgments if they experience procedural justice: the fairness and transparency through which decisions are made. They may not like a case outcome, but they’ll go along with it if they approve of how the dispute was handled.

Courts can protect procedural justice and their legitimacy by making sure each party in a case has a chance to present its story and by emphasizing respect from not only judges but clerks and other court personnel.

Of course, these strategies aren’t as relevant for the millions of people who don’t have direct experience with our legal system. But judges can still reach these Americans by conveying the degree to which many decisions seem to uphold principles of law rather than giving vent to ideological beliefs.

Unanimity on the court: Closely divided Supreme Court decisions like the 2012 ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, or the more recent June Medical Services v. Russo case — which struck down a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals — draw lots of attention.

But it turns out that unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court are far more common. Since 2000, approximately 36 percent of all cases were decided 9-0. During that same span, 19 percent were decided 5-4.

More bluntly, courts can continue to get support from ideological and partisan skeptics if these individuals can recognize victories along with their losses.

Recent decisions upholding the civil rights of LGBTQ employees, for example, may blunt liberal frustration over the court’s voting rights cases, such as Shelby County v. Holder, which significantly limited the reach of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In our closely divided and polarized era, the Supreme Court can maintain some of its legitimacy by continuing to issue what law professor Tara Leigh Grove calls “a mix of conservative and progressive decisions in high-profile cases.”

None of this is easy.

Following these strategies requires courts to demonstrate both the expected legal expertise and also political awareness. They must write in the specialized language of the law while communicating to a broader public.

Judges and justices can steer clear of partisan voters and officials who increasingly see their opposition as enemies and not mere political rivals. The alternative is to accept a picture of American courts that shows them as prizes for partisan capture rather than unique forums for resolving disputes and rendering justice.

Bruce Peabody is professor of government and politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Dec. 5

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

FILE - In this Tuesday, March 31, 2020, file photo, Washington Army and Air National Guard soldiers confer in an operations room at Camp Murray, Wash. The state of Washington is calling in the National Guard to help process unemployment benefit claims as officials grapple with a backlog caused in part by a fraud ring that stole more than half a billion dollars in aid, officials said Thursday, June 11, 2020. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren,File)
Editorial: Take steps to make most of next jobless aid bill

State and federal authorities need to improve delivery of unemployment benefits for covid relief.

Schwab: Some how, Trump more ruinous after losing election

In between rounds of golf, Trump still finds time to endanger the lives of election workers.

Comment: GOP should take the deal on $908 billion relief bill

Otherwise, they risk weakening the economy and strengthening Democrats’ push to repeal tax cuts.

Story described struggles of musicians during covid

I would like to thank and congratulate Herald writer Sara Bruestle for… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons for Friday, Dec. 4

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Macro photo of tooth wheel mechanism with imprinted RECEIVE, GIVE concept words
Editorial: We can meet increased need caused by covid

As GivingTuesday nears, consider how you can help nonprofits with the work they do in your community.

A latte is made at Narrative Coffee on Oct. 4, 2018 in Everett, Wa. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Covid only upped need for Small Business Saturday

Locally owned businesses need your support to survive the pandemic. Here’s how to do so safely.

Tonya Drake is chancellor of WGU Washington. (Courtesy of WGU)
Editorial: Education can build on Native Americans’ heritage

There are obstacles to higher education, but also new opportunities to increase students’ access.

Most Read