Supreme Court Upholds Tyranny of the Majority — and Tarnishes Itself

Voting Rights Decision Will Only Speed Erosion of Credibility

Voting Rights: Representatives of various groups including the NAACP gathered outside of the Supreme Court to hear the ruling on the Voting Rights Act challenge.
getty images
Voting Rights: Representatives of various groups including the NAACP gathered outside of the Supreme Court to hear the ruling on the Voting Rights Act challenge.

By J.J. Goldberg

Published June 28, 2013, issue of July 05, 2013.

(page 2 of 2)

In 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, they ruled for the first time in Supreme Court history that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep weapons, irrespective of any militia. That was also the year of Citizens United, which overturned a century’s worth of federal legislation and court precedent limiting corporate campaign spending.

The Roberts Court isn’t the first to use its ultimate power to introduce sweeping social change. The Warren Court ended public school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954; guaranteed defendants’ right to counsel in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, and overturned state bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The Burger Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973.

The difference is that those earlier cases had the effect of protecting individuals and minorities from government misconduct and the tyranny of the majority. The Roberts Court’s rulings nearly always have the effect of upholding government against the individual, business against consumer or employee, rich against poor and powerful against the weak.

What’s more, past courts have tempered their daring with a sense of caution and modesty. Recognizing that their rulings would stir dissension, they made sure they were united at least among themselves. Their most controversial decisions were usually unanimous — or at least, as in Roe’s 7-2 vote, by overwhelming majority. The Roberts Court, by contrast, has shown its contempt for dissent by deciding nearly all its most controversial rulings 5-4.

And the public has returned the contempt. Approval of the court, hovering around 80% in the 1980s, dropped to an all-time low of 52% in a March 2013 Pew survey. Gallup found approval even lower, at 44%.

More ominous, a May 2013 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 87% of the public believes justices’ decisions are influenced by their political views (55% said “a lot,” 32% said “a little”). Republican respondents are more likely to believe the justices should rule solely on law. Democrats slightly favor public opinion as a guide. Neither favors a court that rules by party ideology, but that’s what we’ve got.

That doesn’t mean that the chasm between the court’s conservative and liberal wings is a party-line split. After all, throughout the 2000s the four liberal justices included two Republican appointees, John Paul Stevens and David Souter. They weren’t really liberals. What separated them from the conservatives was their open-mindedness. Nowadays, that’s called liberal.

Beyond the damage it does to the rights of American citizens, the Voting Rights decision exposes the conservatives’ doctrine of originalism — of supposedly strict adherence to the intentions of the Founders — for what it really is: an excuse for trampling over established law and precedent in order to achieve an ideologically defined result.

The end goal is increasingly transparent: to reinforce the power and privilege of the right. The only way to stop it is at the ballot box.

Our ancient teachers understood the dangers posed by judges who don’t play it straight. It’s not just those individuals unfairly judged who suffer — society as a whole loses a bit of its soul.

Contact J.J. Goldgerg at goldberg@forward.com



Would you like to receive updates about new stories?






















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.