REFORM ERRANT SUPREME COURT

The U.S. Supreme Court has long been considered the guardian of the Constitution and the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes in the United States. However, its recent actions have prompted widespread criticism for what many see as a departure from the principle of stare decisis—the legal doctrine of respecting precedent. This shift has had profound implications for American society, particularly in favoring the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the masses. In this article, we will explore the history and importance of stare decisis, examine recent Supreme Court decisions that exemplify judicial activism, and discuss the implications of these rulings as part of a broader right-wing power play. Finally, we will consider President Biden's proposed court reform legislation as a potential remedy to restore balance and integrity to the judicial system.

The History and Justification of Stare Decisis

Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided." It is a foundational principle of the Anglo-American legal system, originating in English common law. The doctrine ensures legal consistency and predictability by obliging courts to follow previous rulings when deciding similar cases. This continuity is crucial for maintaining public confidence in the legal system, as it assures individuals and businesses that the law will not change arbitrarily with shifts in judicial or political power.

The rationale behind stare decisis is twofold:

1. Stability and Predictability: Courts provide a stable and predictable legal environment by adhering to established legal precedents. This allows individuals and businesses to plan their affairs with confidence that the law will not change unpredictably.
2. Respect for Judicial Decisions: Stare decisis underscores the respect for prior judicial decisions, acknowledging that earlier courts have already considered and resolved similar legal questions. Overturning precedent requires compelling justification, as doing so can unsettle the legal landscape and undermine public trust in the judiciary.

Supreme Court's Departure from Stare Decisis

In recent years, the Supreme Court has been accused of abandoning stare decisis in favor of judicial activism, particularly in cases with significant implications for American society. This shift is seen as part of a broader right-wing agenda to reshape the legal landscape in favor of the wealthy and powerful.

Recent Cases Undermining Stare Decisis

1. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022): The Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion, marked a dramatic departure from stare decisis. This ruling effectively ended nearly 50 years of precedent, allowing states to impose strict restrictions or outright bans on abortion. The decision has disproportionately affected low-income women and minorities, who are less able to access out-of-state abortion services.
2. Janus v. AFSCME (2018): In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the 1977 precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which allowed public sector unions to collect fees from non-members to cover collective bargaining costs. The Court's ruling in Janus weakened the financial stability of unions, diminishing their power to advocate for workers' rights and benefits. This decision benefited corporations and the wealthy by undermining labor's influence in the political and economic spheres.
3. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Although not a recent case, Citizens United remains a pivotal example of judicial activism. The Court's 5-4 ruling overturned the precedent by allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections, equating corporate financial contributions with free speech. This decision has amplified the political influence of wealthy individuals and corporations, skewing the democratic process in their favor.
4. Shelby County v. Holder (2013): In a 5-4 decision, the Court invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. This ruling effectively dismantled protections against voter suppression, disproportionately impacting minority and low-income communities. It paved the way for numerous states to enact restrictive voting laws, disenfranchising vulnerable populations.
5. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022): This decision limited the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, undermining efforts to combat climate change. The Court's ruling favored the interests of the fossil fuel industry and set a precedent for curbing the regulatory authority of federal agencies, which play a critical role in protecting public health and the environment.
6. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024): In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court significantly restricted the scope of Chevron deference, a legal doctrine established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine mandated that courts defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes as long as those interpretations are reasonable. By limiting this deference, the Court has made it more difficult for federal agencies to enforce regulations, impacting areas such as environmental protection, labor rights, and consumer safety. This decision benefits powerful business interests by reducing regulatory oversight and accountability.

The Right-Wing Power Play

The recent trend of Supreme Court decisions aligns with a broader right-wing power play aimed at consolidating control over the judiciary and advancing an agenda prioritizing corporate interests and wealth accumulation over individual rights and social equity. This strategy involves appointing conservative judges more likely to overturn precedents protecting workers, minorities, and the environment. By reshaping the judiciary, the right-wing seeks to entrench policies that benefit the affluent and perpetuate economic inequality.

Biden's Court Reform Proposal

In response to these judicial shifts, President Biden has proposed court reform legislation to restore balance and integrity to the Supreme Court. The key components of the proposal include:

1. Expanding the Court: Increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court could dilute the influence of the current conservative majority and foster more diverse perspectives in judicial decision-making.
2. Term Limits for Justices: Implementing term limits would prevent justices from serving lifetime appointments, ensuring regular turnover, and reducing the politicization of the Court.
3. Ethics and Transparency Measures: Requiring justices to adhere to a formal code of ethics and enhancing transparency in the Court's decision-making processes would help restore public trust in the judiciary.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's recent departure from stare decisis represents a troubling shift toward judicial activism that disproportionately benefits the wealthy and powerful while undermining the rights and well-being of ordinary Americans. This trend threatens the integrity of the legal system and the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded. President Biden's proposed court reform legislation offers a potential path forward to restore balance, accountability, and fairness to the judiciary. By embracing these reforms, we can uphold the values of justice and equality essential to a thriving democracy.