Whoever controls the US Senate can shape the US Supreme Court.
But the US Senate allows Wyoming or South Dakota to wield identical political power to New York or California when it comes to approving Supreme Court nominees.
This explains why several high-profile court rulings — such as overturning Roe v. Wade — have sharply conflicted with public opinion.
________
In the past, the parts of the country granted outsize power by the Constitution — less populated states, which tend to be more rural — voted in broadly similar ways as large states and urban areas.
This similarity meant that the small-state bonus in the Senate and Electoral College had only a limited effect on national results. Both Democrats and Republicans benefited, and suffered, from the Constitution’s undemocratic features.
In recent decades, Americans have increasingly sorted themselves along ideological lines. Liberals have flocked to large metropolitan areas, which are heavily concentrated in big states like California, while residents of smaller cities and more rural areas have become more conservative.
This combination — the Constitution’s structure and the country’s geographic sorting — has created a disconnect between public opinion and election outcomes. This disconnect has shaped the Supreme Court, as well.
The court’s membership at any given time is dictated by the outcomes of presidential and Senate elections. If elections reflected popular opinion, Democratic appointees would dominate the court. Yet the court is now dominated by a conservative, six-member majority.
Mr. Trump was able to appoint 3 justices despite losing the popular vote. Similarly, if Senate seats were based on population, none of Mr. Trump’s nominees — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — would likely have been confirmed.
Senate Republicans also would not have been able to block Mr. Obama from filling a court seat during his final year in office.
Even Justice Clarence Thomas’s 1991 confirmation relied on the Senate’s structure: The 52 senators who voted to confirm him represented a minority of Americans
The current court’s approach has magnified the disconnect between public opinion and government policy, because Republican-appointed justices have overruled Congress on major issues
The list includes bills on voting rights and campaign finance. This term, the court issued rulings on abortion, climate policy and gun laws that seemed to be inconsistent with majority opinion, based on polls
Very interesting article.
Whoever controls the US Senate can shape the US Supreme Court.
But the US Senate allows Wyoming or South Dakota to wield identical political power to New York or California when it comes to approving Supreme Court nominees.
This explains why several high-profile court rulings — such as overturning Roe v. Wade — have sharply conflicted with public opinion.
________
In the past, the parts of the country granted outsize power by the Constitution — less populated states, which tend to be more rural — voted in broadly similar ways as large states and urban areas.
This similarity meant that the small-state bonus in the Senate and Electoral College had only a limited effect on national results. Both Democrats and Republicans benefited, and suffered, from the Constitution’s undemocratic features.
In recent decades, Americans have increasingly sorted themselves along ideological lines. Liberals have flocked to large metropolitan areas, which are heavily concentrated in big states like California, while residents of smaller cities and more rural areas have become more conservative.
This combination — the Constitution’s structure and the country’s geographic sorting — has created a disconnect between public opinion and election outcomes. This disconnect has shaped the Supreme Court, as well.
The court’s membership at any given time is dictated by the outcomes of presidential and Senate elections. If elections reflected popular opinion, Democratic appointees would dominate the court. Yet the court is now dominated by a conservative, six-member majority.
Mr. Trump was able to appoint 3 justices despite losing the popular vote. Similarly, if Senate seats were based on population, none of Mr. Trump’s nominees — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — would likely have been confirmed.
Senate Republicans also would not have been able to block Mr. Obama from filling a court seat during his final year in office.
Even Justice Clarence Thomas’s 1991 confirmation relied on the Senate’s structure: The 52 senators who voted to confirm him represented a minority of Americans
The current court’s approach has magnified the disconnect between public opinion and government policy, because Republican-appointed justices have overruled Congress on major issues
The list includes bills on voting rights and campaign finance. This term, the court issued rulings on abortion, climate policy and gun laws that seemed to be inconsistent with majority opinion, based on polls
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/us/american-democracy-threats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7lA.Lopu.-c9cuH2yc0mq