Notice: register_sidebar was called incorrectly. No id was set in the arguments array for the "Sidebar 1" sidebar. Defaulting to "sidebar-1". Manually set the id to "sidebar-1" to silence this notice and keep existing sidebar content. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 4.2.0.) in /home/erzcpwspgm6g/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5664
CRF Blog » Blog Archive » The Anti-Court Court

CRF Blog

The Anti-Court Court

by Bill Hayes

In The Anti-Court Court for the New York Review of Books, David Cole reviews three books on the Supreme Court: Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution by Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz, In the Balance: Law and Politics on the Roberts Court by Mark Tushnet, and Scalia: A Court of One by Bruce Allen Murphy.

Bush was reelected in 2004, this time without needing the Supreme Court’s help, and that meant that when Justice O’Connor announced her retirement and Chief Justice Rehnquist died in office in 2005, President Bush, not Al Gore or a successor, had the privilege of appointing two new justices and shaping the Court for years to come. Had a Democratic president been able to replace Rehnquist and O’Connor, constitutional law today would be dramatically different. Affirmative action would be on firm constitutional ground. The Voting Rights Act would remain in place. The Second Amendment would protect only the state’s authority to raise militias, not private individuals’ right to own guns. Women’s right to terminate a pregnancy would be robustly protected. The validity of Obamacare would never have been in doubt. Consumers and employees would be able to challenge abusive corporate action in class action lawsuits. And Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down regulations on corporate political campaign expenditures and called into question a range of campaign spending rules, would have come out the other way.

But it was not to be. As chief justice, Bush selected Roberts, and as the new associate justice, Samuel Alito. Both were tried-and-true conservatives who had established their reputations in the Reagan administration Justice Department and gone on to serve as federal appellate court judges. Because they replaced two conservative justices, the shift in the Court’s makeup was modest. Roberts was an even trade politically for Rehnquist, for whom he had once served as a law clerk. Alito was much more conservative than O’Connor, who had played the part of swing justice on the Rehnquist Court. But with only four consistent conservatives, the swing justice still controlled outcomes. The principal difference between the Rehnquist and Roberts courts was that Justice Kennedy assumed O’Connor’s role as the Court’s swing vote. Since he is somewhat more conservative than O’Connor, the Court tilted slightly to the right, but only slightly.

President Barack Obama also had the opportunity to fill two vacancies on the Court. He appointed Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter, and Elena Kagan to take the seat of John Paul Stevens. Souter and Stevens had both been appointed by Republicans, but they typically sided with the liberals on controversial cases, so their replacement by Sotomayor and Kagan also did not fundamentally change the Court’s political makeup.

As a result, the Roberts Court is not radically different from its predecessor. As on the Rehnquist Court, the conservatives hold the majority, but their advantage is razor-thin. [more]