Debunking Sheldon Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Propaganda

uTN Social - Free Speech Social Media

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) attends a hearing in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2021.
(Tom Williams/Reuters)

The Court is legitimate, popular, and not in need of the Left’s preferred partisan fixes.

This past Wednesday, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) again attempted to take an axe to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. He called the “six Republicans” on the bench “servants of right-wing dark money interests.” In one fell swoop, he both accused several justices of being partisan hacks and of being corporatist enemies of democracy. As Dan McLaughlin has explained before, the absurdity of this claim is palpable.

Advertisement

Statements such as these have become par for the course for Democratic leadership. As cries from progressives for Court-packing and other methods to “reform” the Court, such as term limits for justices, grow louder, legislators have assailed the legitimacy the Supreme Court has accumulated. After all, it is difficult to justify a total restructuring of a treasured American institution without first proving that it is irredeemably flawed. Unfortunately for progressives, it is the arguments they make about the Court’s lack of legitimacy and the proposals they favor to “reform” the Court that are actually irredeemably flawed.

Let’s start with Whitehouse’s claims about the Court’s legitimacy. For one, almost everything he said was dishonest. In addition to the attacks on the current composition of the Court, he went on to lambast the Left’s favorite boogeyman, Citizens United. But Citizens United has not disproportionately benefited the GOP. In fact, in recent races, the ruling that corporate money constitutes speech has aided Democratic candidates far more than their Republican counterparts.

Advertisement

Whitehouse’s, along with much of the Left’s, primary concern about Citizens United is its allowance of “dark money.” As explained by Open Secrets, a bipartisan organization devoted to tracking the funding of political campaigns, dark money constitutes any funding from an institution that is not required to disclose the identity of its members/donors. Organizations and companies can bypass the typical financial restrictions faced by PACs and Super PACs so long as their “primary purpose” is not political. But Democrats are the overwhelming benefactors of this exception. In the 2020 race, the sum of dark-money donations for Democrats/against Republicans was almost triple the total amount donated for Republicans/against Democrats in all of the most important races. Joe Biden was backed by $22 million compared with Donald Trump’s $8 million. In Georgia, the Democrats’ candidates for Senate raked in about $5.3 million versus Republicans’ $1.9 million. If the conservative justices were really “servants of right-wing dark money interests,” they should be frothing at the mouth at the prospect of overturning a ruling that so greatly favors Senator Whitehouse’s reelection prospects.

Similarly, Whitehouse’s implicit claim that the conservative justices vote en bloc appears to be projection. The Supreme Court has avoided the unceasing trend towards polarization that the legislative branch has been suffering from. We can look to the Supreme Court Database for evidence of this. In the 2018 and 2019 terms, since the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh (widely considered the point at which the Court shifted right), the Supreme Court has heard 133 cases. Of these, 52 were unanimous, 31 were 8–1, 7–1, or 7–2, and 18 were either 6–3 or 6–2. Thirty-two cases were decided by a simple majority, and, even out of these, exactly half of them favored conservatives. When compared with the terms of 2000 and 2001, of the 172 cases brought before the Court, 46 were decided by a simple majority. Of these cases, almost 60 percent of them favored conservatives. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court has actually gotten less partisan.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The idea that the members of the Supreme Court, some of the most esteemed, qualified, and knowledgeable civil servants in the country, would succumb to the same petty partisan squabbles as Congress is false. Among recent significant and liberal-favoring decisions are Bostock (6–3) and Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (5–4), penned by Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts, respectively. By the same token, the recent decision siding against noncitizens and several leftist advocacy groups was ruled unanimously. The opinion was written by Elena Kagan, one of the most liberal justices ever to have served on the Court.

Advertisement

Despite the media’s best efforts to highly publicize the few closely split and highly contentious cases that do occur, the Supreme Court’s approval rating remains above 50 percent, in the mid to high 50s. Reality simply does not bear out the idea that the Supreme Court is suffering a legitimacy crisis.

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.

Get Jim Geraghty’s tour of the political news of the day.

Get Kevin D. Williamson’s newsletter delivered to your inbox each Tuesday.

A weekly digest on business and economics from an NR sensibility.

We’ll deliver The Capital Note to your inbox each weekday. No charge.

Now let’s turn to the Left’s proposed “fixes” for this “problem.” Surely in large part because the problem they want to fix is not real, the most dramatic fix, Court-packing, continues to be abysmally unpopular. Its radical break with the nature of the Court and the obvious flexing of partisan interest also likely contribute to this idea’s unpopularity. So let us pass it by. Perhaps more insidious, however, are the supposedly more moderate methods to modify the Court. One example is the plan to impose 18-year term limits for justices.

There are several problems with this idea. For one, the hypocrisy of the House members calling for it is transparent. Any legislator who calls for term limits should vote to impose term limits on themselves first. After all, it’s not as though SCOTUS justices are subject to the corrupting incentives that congressmen are when they search for campaign donations.

Additionally, it’s unclear what term limits would accomplish. Do judges suddenly become worse at interpreting the law after 18 years? This seems counterintuitive; one would think that accumulated experience improves scholarship. If the worry is about their age or condition getting in the way of their job, individual justices can always be replaced through retirement or impeachment.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Some claim that term limits would ensure that the Court becomes more representative of the American public, by forcing a more rapid turnover rate. But why should we care about how representative the Supreme Court is? Justices shouldn’t be nominated based on their identity. They should be nominated based on their judicial philosophy, peer recommendations, qualifications, and record. Some of the most important opinions of all time were only possible precisely because of how removed justices were from the political landscape. John Marshall Harlan had been on the bench for over 18 years when he wrote his famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. Brown v. Board of Education was decided unanimously in 1954, a time when the American public was not particularly renowned for its support for the civil-rights movement. It does not matter how popular or representative a decision is — it just needs to be correctly decided.

The constitutionality of Supreme Court term limits is even more worrisome. Article III, Section I, of the Constitution states: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” The Founders intended for justices to be fully independent of the other branches of government. To ensure this, as well as to guarantee that highly skilled lawyers view their appointment to the Supreme Court as a crowning legal achievement, Alexander Hamilton advocated life terms. Many constitutional experts agree that the phrasing implies that justices must be afforded life tenure.

Advertisement

If the reform bill offered by congressional Democrats continues to pick up steam, what is to stop cynical politicians like Senator Whitehouse from changing the term limits to 14 years, or ten years, or six years? Some have pointed out that the rule change could include a grandfather clause, meaning that justices confirmed before the passage of the bill would not be subject to the term limit. But there is no constitutional assurance that future bills would need to include such a clause. If the Constitution allows Congress to impose term limits on the Supreme Court, there is no reason to believe representatives would not remove justices they dislike at will by simply fiddling with the term limits.

The only way to circumvent all of these issues would be to amend the Constitution, which, due to the ongoing popularity of the Roberts Court, seems nigh-impossible. Defenders of the Court should acknowledge, however, that an upcoming series of highly contentious cases to be decided this term may weaken the Court’s bipartisan popularity. The media will of course go haywire if any of them go in conservatives’ preferred direction. But, as always, we should resist unnecessarily embarking on a radical path to revolutionize a treasured pillar of our political system. And we should certainly be honest about it. Sheldon Whitehouse should give that a try sometime.

Recommended


Fauci Admits Post-Vaccination Masking Was about ‘Signals’ Weeks after Insisting Otherwise

Fauci chastised Rand Paul in March over his suggestion that Fauci’s post-vaccination masking was ‘theater.’


The Fall of Saint Anthony Fauci

On the unforced errors of America’s most political doctor.


Calm Down, Everyone: The ‘UFOs’ Aren’t Aliens

The videos disclosed so far all have obvious potential terrestrial explanations.


The Mask Is an Outward Sign of Inward Things

This isn’t a medical question anymore; it’s a question of cultural allegiance.


Maggie Haberman Is Right

Donald Trump really does believe that he, along with two former GOP senators, will be ‘reinstated’ to office this summer.


The Democrats Have a Kamala Harris Problem

It seems indisputable that the Democratic Party has a real interest in Harris being more popular than she is.

The Latest


Biden COVID Advisor: Americans Should Have ‘Sacrificed A Little Bit’ More during Pandemic

Slavitt also faulted the Trump administration for failing to take the pandemic seriously early on.


U.S. Monitoring Potential Leak at Chinese Nuclear Power Plant: Report

The French company that partially owns the facility warned of an ‘imminent radiological threat’ in a letter to the Energy Department.


Chamber of Commerce CEO Defends Recent Embrace of Democrats

‘We have to be willing to have a different coalition on every issue,’ president Suzanne Clark said.


Novavax Likely to Add Fourth COVID Vaccine to U.S. Arsenal

Novavax may be required to undergo the normal vaccine approval process, rather than the expedited emergency one.


Abortion Is No Way to Celebrate the Gift of Women

The world needs us to value women and men and their complementarity. It’s the only way to peace and sanity.


Wokeness Comes to Philanthropy

It is already politicizing charitable organizations. It may also destroy them.

Top Stories

Get our conservative analysis delivered right to you. No charge.


Most Popular


Why Obama Failed


Why Obama Failed

In a revealing interview, Obama tried to burnish his image for progressive posterity — but he still doesn’t understand his fundamental errors.


Yup, the Wuhan Institute of Virology Kept Live Bats within Its Walls


Yup, the Wuhan Institute of Virology Kept Live Bats within Its Walls

If no live bats or other animals are collected and taken back to the lab, why would the laboratory need 126 cages?


The skunky air, &c.


The skunky air, &c.

On the pervasive smell of pot; the degeneration of New York City; violence on the right; Oxford kids vs. the queen; and more.


View More

Read More Feedzy

The Foxhole App - Trusted News Podcasts

Leave a Reply

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