Why Democrats Demand the Abolition of the Supreme Court
Democrats are not just opposing the current political tilt of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS); they are deeply concerned about how the Court was formed. The situation is a complex admixture of sheer bad luck for the left and the exploitation of political maneuvering by Republicans.
When discussing the electoral college system, people often point to its long-standing success, suggesting it has worked well for over a century, hence the hesitation to make any changes. However, if it were not for the electoral college and some unfortunate quirks in the 2000 presidential election, today's Supreme Court would look entirely different, possibly with a liberal or moderate majority.
Republicans and the Changing Of The Rules
Republicans have always emphasized, "elections have consequences." However, they also once believed that justices should not be rejected based on mere political grounds, but only for honesty, corruption, and competency. This belief was deeply tested during the refusal to hear a fair appointment by President Barack Obama and subsequent rules changes to accommodate Donald Trump's nominations.
The Current System: Upheld by Chance and Opportunism
The current system, while not perfect, is severely skewed. Presidents have the unique ability to dramatically alter the Supreme Court if they are lucky enough to hold office during a vacancy and can secure a supporting Senate majority. Currently, with a 51-50 Senate, a lucky president can make a lasting impact on the Court. Other presidents, those less fortunate, have no appointments, resulting in an unbalanced and narrow Court.
Current presidential policies prioritize appointing young justices, pushing them to extend their tenure far beyond their typical lifespan. This creates a Court that is unrepresentative of mainstream American opinion and even legal expertise.
Political Manipulation and Dishonesty
The stakes of Supreme Court nominations are extraordinarily high, with significant political consequences spanning generations. As a result, the process has become heavily politicized. For example, several justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade testified under oath that they had no opinion on the case or would respect precedent. This has led to the demoralization of the judiciary, as justices are driven to become political figures rather than impartial legal experts.
Proposed Solutions
To address these issues, Democrats advocate for reforms that would allow for a more diverse set of perspectives on the Court. This could include:
Making the process more inclusive, giving different stakeholders and demographics a say in the selection of justices.
Enabling the Court’s direction to evolve over time, rather than being permanently set for generations by one party.
Actionable restraint on favoritism, ensuring every president gets at least one or two appointments but not resulting in a permanent change to the Court's dynamics.
The ultimate goal is to balance the power of appointment so that a generation does not see one faction unfairly dominating the Court indefinitely.
These proposals, when fully implemented, could restore fairness and integrity to the Supreme Court and reduce the politicization of justice in the United States.