CE Week #5: “Heart of Darkness?” Oct. 5th
Inside the Supremes’ new term.
By Dahlia Lithwick | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 24, 2009 From the magazine issue dated Oct 5, 2009
Next week the Supreme Court will begin its 2009 term, secure in the knowledge that it remains completely misunderstood by the American public. A Gallup poll conducted in September showed the court’s current approval rating—61 percent—to be higher than it’s been in a decade. (Last year that number was 50 percent.) This fall, 50 percent of Americans believe the court is not too liberal or too conservative; that’s up from 43 percent last year. The number of Americans who believe the court is too conservative has dropped from 30 to 19 percent.
All this public admiration for the court’s moderation came the same week the court was hearing a campaign-finance-reform case that may dismantle a longstanding system of campaign-finance restrictions. The issue in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission is not limited to the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law. The reason court watchers got so worked up about this case is that it squarely tests Chief Justice John Roberts’s stated commitments to preserving precedent, deferring to the elected branches, and issuing narrow rulings instead of sweeping ones. Oral arguments revealed that the court’s five conservatives feel nothing but contempt for campaign-finance regulations that demonize corporations, restrict core political speech, and—to quote the chief justice—”put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats.”
But that’s where the public confusion kicks in. In last term’s cases on voting rights, reverse discrimination, and a school strip search, the court opted for narrow, case-specific rulings rather than the sweeping ones foreshadowed by dramatic oral arguments. All this hardly means the 2008 term was a triumph for liberals at the high court. On balance, the term continued a clear trend in which big business always prevails, environmentalists are always buried, female and elderly workers go unprotected, death-row inmates get the needle, and criminal defendants are shown the door. So how to explain these new poll numbers showing that 49 percent of Republicans believe the Roberts Court is too liberal and 59 percent of Democrats believe the court is “about right”?
In part, the numbers reflect a focus on the wrong data; we continue to believe in the court we see on TV. Thus, the highly charged confirmation hearings of Justice Sonia Sotomayor this summer contributed to the idea that the court was swinging leftward, even though it’s clear that her substitution for Justice David Souter will do nothing to alter the balance of the court (indeed, she is generally expected to move the court to the right in some areas of criminal law). Similarly, the refusal of the court to go all the way in the big-banner civil-rights cases last year leads to the broad perception that the court is quite liberal.
To be sure, progressives who claim that the court’s eventual ruling in September’s campaign-finance fracas will conclusively reveal the heart of darkness that lurks inside the Roberts Court are also overstating their case. It’s true that the Roberts Court is a fundamentally conservative creature and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. But as we learned yet again last term, it’s also a court that is deeply aware of, even responsive to, public opinion. This is a court willing to reverse the Warren revolution with a tablespoon instead of a wrecking ball, and that may be too nuanced an approach to be captured in public-opinion polls.
The term that opens next week promises to provide another fistful of cases that will slowly deepen our understanding of the Roberts Court. Among them: yet another challenge to a cross on government property (raising questions about who has standing to be offended by religious symbols); a dispute over the constitutionality of a federal statute criminalizing depictions of animal cruelty; questions about whether juveniles may be sentenced to life without parole; another hot eminent-domain case; and maybe even a quarrel over whether the name “Washington Redskins” is offensive. If the tea leaves are correct, we may also see another confirmation hearing next summer.
As a generation raised on a constant diet of reality television and the inevitable “big reveal,” we will continue to look to the high drama of oral argument and the staged fireworks of judicial-confirmation hearings for our views about the Supreme Court. What really happens at the high court in the coming years will continue to occur by the tablespoon—even if we are too busy with imagined wrecking balls to see it.
This article talks about how the Supreme Court moves and how the people effect that movement. It also talks about citizen issues and campaign-finance-reform laws, and how they should be challenged, yet they shouldn’t trump the other. It talks about balance and authority. Nothing in here was all-that enlightening, but the court cases and how one rule or authority can over rule another. Most of the rulings being trumped or discussed were the Roberts Court cases.
A interesting topic would be Government Property, but that’s more for my personal goals and believes. I want to know more about balance and what rules can be crossed, what those rules are, and how I can cross them or fight them without getting in trouble. I like arguing, so I’ll put this, Government Property and Property are really a joke put in place to make sure everyone plays nice.
This article was confusing, enlightening, and hard to understand. It was boring and too word oriented, as if the writer didn’t want to say something wrong. He knew what he was talking about, and he had statistics to show it, but there was no passion in his writing. I would like to read a well educated writing on this same topic with less statistics and more passion. However, like I implied, it was worth reading and I’m glade I read it.
A. I had not realized that the Supreme Court had a conservative tilt. I, being the average uninformed American, thought that the Supreme Court was liberal. The majority of the cases and issues mentioned were new to me and the only thing that I had a glimmer of an idea about was the Sotomayor confirmation. And even then, I thought she was a liberal and didn’t realize that she had some conservative tendencies.
B. I personally don’t find it that surprising that Americans know very little about the Supreme Court. It is the only branch of government that we don’t vote for and thus have less influence on the justices’ decisions, if any. The court was set up to be disconnected with the public by the Constitution, so it doesn’t really give us a reason to care. The fact that the general public’s view of the court is skewed by television may be true, but mainstream networks look for interesting stories , like the Sotomayor confirmation. Supreme Court rulings seem to be left mainly to more hardcore news groups who are not main stream so it seems to take a little digging to find this information. As an aside, reality television is stupid.
C. Two cases I am really interested in learning more about are the cross on government property case and the juvenile life sentence without parole case. Also, who is the Warren the author refers to and is Ginsburg going to be the next justice who is replaced?
A) So this article was on the Supreme Court. It was talking about what the support for the court is and what is going on with it for the most part. I learned that the court has a 60% approval rate which is pretty good. I also learned that people really don’t watch court rulings and just keep up with what the verdict is. I understand this but this was pretty true across the board.
B) I think that this was an interesting article. It was all about our less well known branch of government. The Supreme Court is an interesting subject. It is a different way to make sure that democracy is achieved. The branch that has the final say is the Supreme Court. I think that is really cool. I believe that the Supreme Court really shows how the whole country thinks. With their term being for life and the presidents appoint them with approval from the Senate, everybody has to like them at that time. They could be serving for 40 years if they were appointed when they were 50. This shows that they can span many presidencies so then they have the ability to overturn many things that new presidents and congress wants to do.
C) I would like to know more about what the Supreme Court decide. Like what things do they decide to do this year? That would be interesting to know
As far as the Supreme Court having the approval rate of 60%, I believe that to be hog wash, because as TJ said, “…that people really don’t watch court rulings and just keep up with what the verdict…”, so how are they to know the facts represented inside the court room during the trial. They don’t. That’s how. The person on trial could have had a major part of the 60% side with him/her if the people had only watched the proceedings.
I also don’t believe that at the time of being appointed that “everyone” has to like those appointed to the Supreme Court seats. I like to think that those appointed are appointed because they bring a knowledgeable and ethnical back ground to the table. Maybe they aren’t the presidents friends and I say that it’s all the better if they aren’t so that there is no conflict of interest in case the prez dose anything naughty, and I would agree with wanting to know what the Supreme Court decides to do, but I would also like to watch the proceedings so I know what questions are asked and have the opportunity to come to my own conclusion instead of having to take a person’s word for it.
NO CREDIT: LATE
In response to TJ McGriff:
I liked the question you had proposed, so I looked it up, and I found myself completely surprised. I had been under the belief that for a case to reach the Supreme Court was a rather rare occurrence. Much to my surprise, I found this website, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/, if you follow the link titled orders and journals you will find that all the Supreme Court rulings are posted there in an extensive list. For 2009 alone there were ninety-one pages of Supreme Court rulings. This just completely shattered my previous ideas about the American justice system, since I had believed it so rare for a case to reach the supreme court that I assumed I would hear about it and the rulings on the news, as I find myself trying to listen to it for at least fifteen minutes a day I had believed that I was at least somewhat familiar with how things worked, but alas I found myself feeling that same kind of dumb feeling you get when you walk into the wrong classroom and everyone looks at you like you are some kind of moron. I hope that you will follow the link to that website and read up before you make the same mistake I did and so that you can avoid the wrong-room-moron feeling, have a good day.