The Supreme Court Is an Antidemocratic Monstrosity. We Should Break Its Power.
Instead of celebrating Stephen Breyer’s retirement, we should be weakening the Supreme Court’s power. Popular majorities should determine the course of our society — not nine unelected lawyers.
If we’re serious about enacting pro-worker policies in this country, we need to counter the institution’s power to override the will of popular majorities. (AscendedAnathema / Wikimedia Commons)
When Stephen Breyer announced his retirement from the Supreme Court last week, liberals rejoiced that a Democratic president would appoint his successor. You’d think, observing this joyful outburst, that some important turning point in the court’s political composition had occurred. Yet it was more a sign of how defeatist liberals have become on the subject: a Supreme Court that already has a six-three conservative majority will now retain its six-three conservative majority.
That’s pathetic. There’s no reason for anyone to accept that six conservatives should be empowered to block social progress for years to come. In fact, no panel of unelected lawyers should have that power.
Stop Respecting Traditions
In theory, Joe Biden could appoint more justices and the Senate could confirm them until the Court had a twelve-six or eighteen-six liberal majority. Nowhere does the Constitution require a nine-member court, so that number could be changed by a simple act of Congress. In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt unsuccessfully proposed a bill that would have done exactly that, and, as hard as it is to remember now, numerous progressive commentators touted the idea after Donald Trump changed the balance of the court from five-four to six-three in 2020.
This article is for subscribers only. Please login or subscribe to access our full archives and beautiful print and digital magazine starting at just $3 a month.