Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
June marks the beginning of the final stretch of the most politically fraught term of the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years.
The justices’ work is usually low on the public’s radar throughout most of a term, but when June arrives, decisions in the most difficult and high-profile cases thrust the court into the public eye. That happened Monday, when the court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
This term feels more politically fraught than recent ones for two reasons: the extreme partisanship dominating the relationships between the executive and legislative branches, and the nature of the remaining cases to be decided.
In a 2011 interview, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “What I care most about, and I think most of my colleagues do, too, is that we want this institution to maintain the position that it has had in this system, where it is not considered a political branch of government.”
What Justice Ginsburg undoubtedly voiced was her hope that the court would not be considered a partisan institution as the other two branches are.
But the task is made harder because of the ideological divide on the Roberts Court: five conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents, and four liberal justices appointed by Democratic presidents. When they divide 5-4, the outcome appears more political than ideological.
Past terms have revealed what appears to be a core group of justices who strive harder than the others to find common ground in the most divisive cases. They include Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
Their challenge is particularly difficult—and may well fail—in the following, still-undecided cases, which threaten to draw the institution into the current political thicket.
Former NewsHour correspondent Margaret Warner moderated a conversation with retired Justice David Souter in New Hampshire a number of years ago. The justice was asked: how does the public judge the justices? The public, replied Souter, has to read the court’s decisions.
“A principled decision is one in which the Court candidly and convincingly explains why this principle prevailed over that principle,” he said. “It is the choice of principles that is the tough part. The public judgment has got to be a judgment on whether they believe what the Court says, whether they believe what the Court says, is convincing in making that choice between principles.”
In this age of instant news and analyses that seem to come at us from every direction, Souter’s prescription may be too difficult to fill in our busy lives. But ultimately it is our own challenge in the next four weeks as this very consequential term comes to an end.
NewsHour regular, Marcia Coyle, is Chief Washington Correspondent for The National Law Journal where she covers the U.S. Supreme Court and national legal issues.
Support Provided By: