The resumption of election fervor heralds a significant focus on the Supreme Court, primarily due to the dynamic between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Hill reported that with President Joe Biden stepping aside and endorsing Harris, the contours of the debate over court influence and structure are becoming clearer. Harris will no doubt continue Biden's plans of "packing" the Supreme Court to shift the balance of power in favor of Democrats.
Biden’s endorsement of Harris not only solidifies her position in the race but also affixes his judicial reform proposals to her campaign platform.
These proposals include introducing 18-year term limits for justices and enforcing a regulatory code of conduct, ideas which Harris has historically supported. Such changes, however, require a constitutional amendment—a tough hill to climb given the current political divides evidenced by House Speaker Mike Johnson’s remark that the legislation would be “dead on arrival.”
During Trump's presidency, his appointment of three justices significantly tilted the court's ideological balance, contributing to the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade.
This history underpins a lot of the urgency and fervor from Democratic circles concerning the court, aligning Harris's perspectives as not just politically significant but also personally resonant, given her background and former roles.
Harris's identity as a Black and Indian American woman brings distinct viewpoints to paramount issues such as abortion and affirmative action.
These issues resonate deeply during electoral campaigns and are redefining the contours of how judicial appointments and court reforms are discussed. Her experience on the Senate Judiciary Committee also places her in a critical position to scrutinize past and future nominees effectively.
The Republican response has been equally fervent, with accusations flying from conservative activists and the Republican National Committee about Democrats allegedly attempting to manipulate the court structure for political gain. Terms like “a real threat to democracy” are emblematic of the high stakes both parties attribute to the Supreme Court’s influence.
One cannot overlook the shifting public opinion towards the Supreme Court. Since Trump's significant judicial appointments, approval ratings for the court have plummeted, indicating a growing disquiet among the American populace about the impartiality and ethics of the nation's highest court.
Discussions on reforming the Supreme Court aren’t new. Harris herself has indicated openness to drastic changes as far back as 2019, emphasizing the need to “take this challenge head-on.”
These sentiments are driven entirely by the fact that SCOTUS is the only part of the federal government that isn't actively controlled by Democrats and leftists. So now they are running a campaign to "reform" the Supreme Court, or in other words, shift the balance in their favor.
Experts like Alex Aronson and Melissa Murray echo these concerns, pointing out that the public perceives “something deeply out of kilter” and tagging Harris's support for court reform as a potentially “winning issue.”
Dan Urman, an expert on judicial matters, reflects that Harris’s alignment with judicial reform is a calculated part of her campaign strategy, underscoring the critical importance of the Court’s composition in advancing her policy ambitions. This aligns with Aronson’s assertion that tackling Supreme Court issues is indispensable if Harris is sincere about her policy priorities.
Of course, all these experts have a Democrat bias and are using their credentials to push a political agenda.
As the race heats up, the Supreme Court stands not just as a judicial entity but as a central arena for political and ideological contestation.
With Harris embracing a platform of reform and facing off against Trump's legacy on the court, the coming months promise a sharpened debate over the future of the highest court in the land.
This includes revisiting past decisions, re-evaluating the structure and ethics of the court, and grasping the intertwined fates of judiciary and democracy as envisioned by the competing camps.