ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Susan Estrich commentary: The Supreme Court tanks in public opinion

Summary: Only one thing is clear on the U.S. Supreme Court. The numbers are likely to drop even further when the decision is released and its consequences become daily news fodder. And whichever side of the partisan divide you are on, it is never good news when respect for the rule of law and the institution that is its ultimate repository just plain tanks.

U.S. Supreme Court
Tribune file photo
We are part of The Trust Project.

In the polls at least, the Supreme Court is no longer the respected institution that it once was. Consider these numbers from the Marquette University Law School poll. In September 2020, the week before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, 66% of all Americans approved of the Court. In the latest poll, taken after the leak of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's approval rating dropped 22 points, to a record low of 44%. The ratings dropped most among Democrats, going from 49% in March to 26% in May. According to the poll's director, professor Charles Franklin, "political polarization in views of the court has just dramatically widened," with a 42-point gap in approval ratings between Republicans and Democrats.

Susan Estrich
Susan Estrich commentary
Tribune graphic
Summary: Judy Huth waited nearly 50 years. That is one long-delayed victory. But the fact that Bill Cosby will finally have to pay for what he did that night should give pause to those who would prematurely declare the death of the #MeToo movement at the hands of Amber Heard. Forget about Heard.
Summary: And the sad truth is that the Republican Party is still afraid of Donald Trump. What will it take? How much worse could it be? If incitement to violence is not enough, what is?
Summary: The anti-abortion movement has succeeded, by their lights, in making it very difficult for the most vulnerable women to exercise their constitutional right to control their bodies. A host of regulations, upheld even under Roe, make it far more difficult to get an abortion than, say, it is to get a gun. Middle-class women in urban areas who can afford to take a day off of work have access to abortions in the big cities where they live. Poor women, young girls and rural families lack access. If the anti-Roe forces have their way, you can add rape and incest victims to that list.
Summary: afe subways, safe streets, not having to step over people, quite literally, to get down the street. These are issues that should not divide along partisan lines, and the fact that they still do is our own fault -- and by "our," I mean it is the fault of progressives.

It is, frankly, hard not to feel betrayed. The traditions that limit the power of judges to make law whole cloth include, first and fundamentally, respect for precedent. In their confirmation hearings, President Donald Trump's three appointees — especially Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — mouthed the magic words about respect for precedent that clearly led some Democrats to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe at least one of them would respect precedent. Not so, apparently.

That the Court appears so nakedly partisan and that it is viewed that way is bad for democracy and the rule of law. The Court exercises enormous power in our society without the checks and balances that govern other branches. True, statutes can be amended -- and in theory, the Constitution can, too, but the difficulty of doing so only underscores the power that the Court has in interpreting words written hundreds of years ago, when, for instance, women had no rights at all.

The Court's decisions are final. They carry the force of law. They must be obeyed and they are, and have been, sometimes with the help of the National Guard (in the school desegregation cases) and the local police (protecting a woman's right to go to an abortion clinic), but mostly simply because they are "the law of the land." The U.S. Marshals protect the courthouse and the justices; they do not enforce the decisions of the Court. It is the great miracle of the rule of law that with few exceptions, no force is needed to enforce the law. The Court's power depends on that.

That is what is at stake when the Court becomes just another political institution in a politically polarized country. One side or the other loses respect, or they both do, and it isn't just respect for the particular men and women who are sitting there. We risk respect for the institution as a whole.

ADVERTISEMENT

I remember my old boss, the late Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee for the record, telling me how dearly the Court paid in terms of its credibility for Bush v. Gore. For much of his tenure, Chief Justice John Roberts has attempted to rebuild that credibility, keeping the Court on a path that, while conservative, remained within the realm of respect for more moderate and liberal voters. No more. He has lost control, and Democrats have lost confidence.

There are consequences. Many more people approve of Roe v. Wade than approve of the Court. There will be talk, again, of expanding the Court. There will be talk, again, of blackballing each side's nominees. The confirmation process will get uglier, not better. If Democrats lose the Senate, any confirmations could grind to a halt. The disease of disrespect easily spreads to the lower federal courts as well.

Of course judges make law. It's the first thing you learn in law school, when you discover that the whole game is to see and be able to argue both sides, to spot the issues and slice the doctrine. But there are constraints, like "stare decisis," the Latin phrase for "respect for precedent." When the high court finds new law, it inevitably faces challenges. When it does so by jettisoning a precedent that took decades to find its way into broad acceptance, it risks broad rejection.

Only one thing is clear. The numbers are likely to drop even further when the decision is released and its consequences become daily news fodder. And whichever side of the partisan divide you are on, it is never good news when respect for the rule of law and the institution that is its ultimate repository just plain tanks.

Susan Estrich can be reached at sestrich@wctrib.com .

More commentary:
Recent commentary columns published by the West Central Tribune.
Summary: Whatever the case may be, it is clear that the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is a crass political endeavor that is unlikely to resonate with the majority of the American people, who know that Jan. 6 was a stain on the country that could have been avoided in the first place but is now being used for political gamesmanship on behalf of congressional Democrats.

WCT.OP.Commentary.jpg

Opinion by Susan Estrich
Susan Estrich is an American lawyer, professor, author, political operative, and political commentator. es. She can be reached via sestrich@wctrib.com.

What to read next
"Overturning federal protections that provide access to health care, the right to marry, the right to live out one’s sexual orientation, the right to define one’s own gender may make us feel better because of our interpretation of scripture. But in reality, what it does is put lives in jeopardy, impoverish the already impoverished, reduce human dignity, further marginalize the marginalized, alienate those already upset with the church’s hypocrisy and continues to splinter the body of Christ."
"Across Agweek Country, hundreds of farmers, ranchers and other agriculturalists are deciding whether this will be their last full-time year in ag. They still enjoy what they do, but they also realize it might be time to step back."
Summary: Some "pro-life" activists want Congress to ban abortion nationwide. "That," The Wall Street Journal opines, "will strike many Americans as hypocritical after decades of Republican claims that repealing Roe would return the issue to the states." But "that" is something they will undoubtedly try. ... Answered prayers have their consequences.
Summary: All of this will happen — not because of any constitutional principle — but because a majority of the justices have decided they have unbridled power to govern the lives of Americans has they choose.