The recently deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg is considered one of the most “progressive” Supreme Court justices who has ever been appointed. Ginsburg has been instrumental in supporting women’s rights through her advocacy both on the court and off. However, several of her rulings have drawn significant criticism from progressives. For example, in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, she sided with the Trump administration in concluding that asylum seekers whose claims are struck down by immigration officials do not have a right to a hearing before a judge. Another highly controversial ruling is City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York in which RBG wrote the court majority opinion that native repurchasing of tribal land did not restore their sovereignty to that land. Even the most liberal of justices failed to consistently support the interests of Indigenous people and asylum-seekers.
With RBG’s passing, President Donald Trump rushed to nominate the very conservative Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy due to the proximity of the election. With a Republican majority in the Senate, she was confirmed without much difficulty, and even some Democrats showed little resistance to her confirmation. This made the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative supermajority over liberals. The confirmation stands in direct contradiction to Republican refusal to even hold a hearing for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in 2016, with the excuse that the election was too soon, and it should wait until the elections had finished.
The fact that the people have zero direct say in who is appointed to one of the three branches of the government and it is instead up to self-contradicting corporate senators makes it clear that the mere existence of the Supreme Court is inherently undemocratic. With Barrett’s confirmation, many Americans now must worry about the very real potential loss of their reproductive rights, as well as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which has saved thousands of lives annually and has prevented people from having to choose between going bankrupt and getting medical treatment for severe injuries. People’s access to healthcare and reproductive rights may have rested on the sickening predicament of whether an 87 year old woman with cancer could stick it out until after the election.
President Trump has warned that the Supreme Court could also be used as a means to dispute Joe Biden’s victory in the election. As it turns out, there is historical precedent for the “apolitical” Supreme Court to intervene in the vote-counting process in order to sway the results of an election: The infamous Bush v. Gore case of 2000. With a small margin of victory in Florida, then-candidate George W. Bush went to the conservative majority Supreme Court to stop a recount of votes in Florida, which ultimately secured him the victory over Al Gore. This was a clearly political intervention by the supposedly apolitical Supreme Court, and ended up costing the lives of 200,000 Iraqi civilians that resulted from Bush’s subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The Supreme Court is an archaic institution that has demonstrated time and time again that it has the potential to damage the rights of the American people without being accountable to them in any direct way. Even RBG, the most liberal of justices, sided against asylum-seekers and Native Americans trying to regain the rights to the land that was stolen from them by the U.S. While the potential is limited, the results of the recent election that declared Joe Biden the victor has the potential to be challenged by the 6-3 conservative supermajority should any of Trump’s lawsuits make it to the Supreme Court. The precedent set with the deeply political decision by the Court to halt the Florida recount in the 2000 election is a dangerous one in any case, further demonstrating that the Supreme Court has the potential to be deeply ideological despite claiming to be “impartial”. For the sake of human rights and lives both domestically and internationally, the Supreme Court should be abolished.
Good points
Aanand, your article is well researched and eloquent. Congratulations. The following comments are made to give you my personal thoughts. They are by no means meant to be arguments for any one side. The constitution of the USA is the Ultimate basis of all the government Functions and must be adhered to precisely by all the three branches. There have been some amendments made over time but the basic concept remains unchanged. To provide checks and balances when there are issues to be settled, The supreme court of the US becomes the final authority. The nine Supreme Court justices are very carefully chosen and finalized have to go through tremendous scrutiny by the President and The Senate.the nominee is finalized by majority Senators voting As defined in the constitution. Neither the president nor the Congress forcefully finalizes any nominee to be the supreme court justice. In my 60+ years in this country I have seen this process work in seatingOf each justice that was confirmed by this process. I sincerely believe that all these justices are very patriotic, Intellectuals Who would stay within the boundaries of theHighest personal integrity and the US Constitution. I believe that their deliberations and the subsequent judgments were carefully and honestly delivered, some seem to be conservative,some liberal. when the president picks a nominee,he or she may be labeled conservative or liberal. Once the person becomes a US Supreme Court Justice, He or she will independently judge the case merits, With respect to strict adherence to the US Constitution regardless of the label he or she had. There have been many cases where a conservative judge has voted liberally in a particular case and vice versa. For example you quoted justice Ginsburg in your article where she voted with the conservatives opinion.Just last week in the case of The house of worship, the chief justice ‘conservative’justice Roberts voted with the liberal judges. In my memory this has happened many times. Every supreme court justice will make decisions with the highest personal integrity in any case without worrying about he or she sided with the conservatives or The liberals. we need the Supreme Court and the two other branches of the government to work together and stay within the constitution. Do not worry as to how these justices will vote. Have faith that they will do the right thing Every time. We need the Supreme Court and it’s Finalauthority As defined in the US constitution. We all get frustrated when the decisions made by the US Supreme Court are not to our liking but it is still the best system in the world. Keep faith Aanand. Love Daddaji
There is no provision in the constitution for the supreme court, so they are nothing more than government drones.
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.