When you cover this Supreme Court for a living, it is tempting to fall into despair.

The Court has spent the last few years relitigating long-settled fights over abortion and affirmative action. It consistently rules that the rights of LGBTQ Americans, women using birth control, and even people who don’t want to catch a deadly disease must give way to the whims of the Christian Right.

Under its three-year-old Republican supermajority, the Court took a decidedly post-legal turn. It routinely relies on fabricated legal rules, such as the so-called major questions doctrine, to veto liberal policies like President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program or to undermine environmental protections.

Its guns decision in New York State Rifle v. Bruen (2022) is an incompetent train wreck, which has baffled lower court judges and produced appalling results — including an appeals court decision holding that a law prohibiting individuals from “possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order” is unconstitutional.

And yet, despite all of this, I am far more optimistic about the future of the United States than I was a year ago, and a big reason why is the Supreme Court’s behavior over the last several months.

When the Court opened its latest term last October, my level of alarm was about a 13 out of 10. The GOP-appointed justices had just completed an orgy of conservative grudge settling, including its decision overruling Roe v. Wade. Worse, the Court planned to hear new cases that could legalize racial gerrymandering, gut Medicaid, and potentially even destroy US democracy altogether.

A little less than a year later, my level of alarm is down to a nine. The Court’s last term gave anyone to the left of Brett Kavanaugh no shortage of outrages, but it left Medicaid intact. It shut down an argument that many of Donald Trump’s nativist appointees to the lower courts used to seize control of federal immigration policy. And, on the crucial issue of voting rights, the Court handed down two decisions that give real hope that, no matter how else these justices might interfere with federal policymaking, they will preserve the people’s right to elect officials that the justices themselves do not want to see in office.

I want to be precise about the argument that I’m making. If you are angry at the Supreme Court, you are right to be angry. Many of this Court’s decisions are completely lawless — such as the Court’s recent decision in Biden v. Nebraska (2023), which ignored a federal law that unambiguously authorized Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. They demand anger. And that anger isn’t just righteous, it is useful.

But I also want to counsel against despair — that is, I want to counsel against the absence of hope.

The Court’s GOP-appointed majority is starting to draw some fences around the conservative legal project. The Court appears unwilling to attack entrenched parts of the American welfare state. It smacked down a Trump judge who attempted to ban the abortion drug mifepristone. It has rejected legal arguments that would devastate the US economy or threaten its national security.

And, most importantly, the Court is now signaling that it may preserve America’s ability to hold free and fair elections (or, at least, to hold elections that are as free and fair as possible in a nation with an Electoral College and a malapportioned Senate).

If it holds to that, there’s a very real chance that liberals and centrists can defeat this increasingly unpopular Court the old-fashioned way — by consistently electing presidents and senators who will fill the Court with justices who will relegate the works of Samuel Alito to the anti-canon.

  • spider@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    by consistently electing presidents and senators who will fill the Court with justices who will relegate the works of Samuel Alito to the anti-canon

    There’s no foolproof way to do this, though. After all, Alito and Thomas were nominated by the so-called “moderate” Bush family.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      HW also appointed one of the reliably liberal justices of the past couple decades. That doesn’t happen any more. There will never be another Souter. All presidents, for better or for worse, will only appoint candidates that fit a specified ideology.

      • spider@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There will never be another Souter.

        Unfortunately, starting with Clarence Thomas in 1991, Supreme Court justices nominated by Republican presidents were pre-selected by the Federalist Society.

        The Court’s reputation has steadily eroded since then.

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Bushes, especially HW, while terrible and extremely harmful to the world as a whole, were a part of the old guard that still felt the need to keep up the trappings of political balance even if they never really believed in it

  • gardylou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah, this article is a great example of psychological readjustment. The author has readjusted to goddamn Roe being struck down, to the extremely dangerous student loan ruling (George Miller wrote the bulk of the Heroes Act that authorized the forgiveness and he agree it was a proper use of the law–SCOTUS ignored the law and effectively rewrote it).

    The Supreme Court is illegitimate and on the precipice of being entirely fucked. Starting with the stealing of Garlicks seat to the appointed of no experienced and supremely unqualified Barrett to its now dangerous and improper rulings, its legitimacy has been shredded.

    • spider@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, this article is a great example of psychological readjustment.

      Indeed, the court will throw a few crumbs here and there to try to appear legitimate, but McConnell had previously made clear his intent to rig it (which, of course, he did).

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now hang on. I don’t like them much, but they are legitimate. Due process was followed. Nothing says you have to yave experience and what not. When you start saying illegitimate, you sound like trump. Be better than him please. We can’t let him readjust our expectations for how discourse should be discussed.

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Supreme Court is an outdated unethical corruption ridden cesspit that needs to be excised like a cancerous lesion.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just to be clear, you’re saying the Justices, not the actual institution, right?

          • NewDark@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are talking about a completely unelected branch of government you do realize, right?

            • catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol what? I’m pretty sure they’re talking about the branch of government that is full of people appointed by elected officials. Elected officials that were elected by voting. Our voting system is flawed but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy works. Even with partisan gerrymandering this country would be far more left of progressives voted or better yet, volunteered or ran for office. I’m really tired of people acting like we’re helpless. Go out and do something instead of spreading misinformation by falsely representing how our government works. Acting like elections have no impact on who becomes a judge is just a straight up lie.

              If Hillary Clinton was president with a Democrat Senate and House majority, the supreme court would be 5/7 liberal. Clinton is way too far right for me but if we hadn’t let Donald Trump get elected we’d be far better off today and that’s just a fact.

          • nyar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry, how are you getting that from me saying that both the justices and the institution is the supreme court are corrupt?

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And what system would you replace it with that would not be susceptible to corruption?

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have the beginning of a thought. It would require a constitutional amendment.

    How about Justices are still appointed just like now, for life just like now, but have to stand for a “retain” vote every … four years? At the midterms? To lose the retain vote and be removed from office would require a 2/3 vote of the entire nation’s popular vote. If a Justice is removed by this vote, the sitting president nominates someone to the seat, and the vacancy is filled by the normal process - maybe with a six month time limit between “empty seat” and “confirmation”? I know that last bit could be abused, just trying to think of a way to fill the seat in a timely fashion.

    • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the campaign trail, Buttigieg proposed reforming the court to 15 members, 5 appointed by Republicans, 5 by Democrats, and 5 appointed by the rest from the lower courts. “Balanced Bench” would be the technical term

      I think it sounds like a good way to make the court as a whole less political.

        • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Have you not been paying any attention the last 20 years? When has 2/3rds of the public agreed on anything? The right still sees Clearance Thomas as a stand-up guy.

          • Nougat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you not been paying any attention the last 20 years?

            I’ve been paying attention the last 40 years.

            Right now, supreme court justices are lifetime appointments, with the only recourse for removing a justice being impeachment by Congress. Any palatable change to how justices are seated or unseated must fall on the side of cautious change. A 2/3 popular vote is cautious, while also offering another path to unseating a justice, and making that path dependent on direct democracy instead of on Congress.

            I even said it was the beginning of a thought; I never claimed it was perfect. Put your pitchfork away.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you consistently vote for democrats then you’ll maybe get a few “centrist” judges on the court that might make a small difference decades from now. Great.