And yet, the country as a whole is definitely way more more liberal today than it was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. In the bad old days we had segregation, women couldn’t control their own bodies, no gay marriage (in fact gays could be jailed and locked in insane asylums), government-controlled media, minimal social safety nets, and so on and so on.
I don’t think think it’s reasonable to say that everyone has moved to the right. There’s been lots of movement to the left by the country as a whole. It’s just that there’s a whole lot of “bread and circus” drama in the process. People on both sides run around screaming that the sky is falling in. Yet the system keeps working and the country stays pretty solid overall.
Yeah, the Left pushes for more social progress, while the Right fears that the public is just being caught up by fads and acts as a brake on social progress. But that’s just the “marketplace of ideas” in action. It’s messy, but in the end the system works. It involves compromise, which tends to leave everyone dissatisfied to some extent. But that’s how the system works.
The problem with the Supreme Court is not that it is a threat to good governance it is that it is a threat to self governance.
If abortion was as popular as you say then overturning Roe vs Wade would be no big deal at all. Abortion was legal in some states before Roe vs Wade and any state that wanted abortion to be legal after it is overturned could do so with no constitutional objection from the court. Yet the Supreme Court has denied the american people a chance to decide for themselves.
Consider the difference between the traditional marriage movements and the movement to legalize weed. Both have used referendums to try to achieve their ends. The traditional marriage movement has gotten 32 referendums on state ballots and has won 94% of them with an average margin of 33%. The Legalize weed movement has gotten referendums on the ballot in 14 states, has succeeded on half of the referendums and has never gotten a margin as high as the average marriage referendum. Yet because of the Supreme Court the traditional marriage movement has been a failure while the much less popular weed legalization movement is on the ascendancy.
That is why Supreme Court matters so much, the one side wants the Supreme Court to enforce the constitution on the few issues contained in the constitution and the other side wants to use it to veto whenever democracy gets the result wrong.
The Court has served to protect against the tyranny of the majority. In the past, anti-SSM referenda always won big and Republicans used them to increase their voter turnout. But the rights of the gay minority should not be subject to the whims of the majority. If the Court affirms the rights of gays to marry, it is correcting against the tyranny of the majority. Ditto with abortion. The rights of women to decide what to do with their bodies should not depend on the whims and prejudices of the majority of the voters. It isn’t that democracy gets it wrong so much as there are some things that democracy should not be able to take from you.
Honestly, I have no clue what you’re talking about with “the traditional marriage movements” and much of the rest of it.
With Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS saw that abortions had become medically safe and were largely becoming legal at the state level anyway. It was a fait accompli. So the SCOTUS just put their seal of approval on it. And they’ve been vindicated–their decision hasn’t come up for a single real challenge by the President or Congress of either party in the half-century since then. It was a good call.
The legalize-marijuana movement is still relatively new; SCOTUS probably won’t touch that one for a while. They tend to wait until an issue is pretty much a fait accompli before they step in.
As for gay rights, SCOTUS has been inching along toward giving gays more and more rights over the last few decades. Now gay marriage is becoming a fait accompli at the state level. So we can probably expect SCOTUS to give its seal of approval on that as well.
Again, SCOTUS issues are rarely cliffhangers. SCOTUS is not a cutting-edge institution. It largely just tries to reflect public opinion (at least when it comes to social issues). By the time SCOTUS rules on something, it’s pretty much settled in the public at large and there probably won’t be any challenge from POTUS or Congress on the issue. Just some grumbling from those who were on the losing side.
Presumably you’re not going to vote for someone who will promote policies you disapprove of. It shouldn’t matter whether they’re doing so out of personal belief or party identification. But if you think they’re going to pursue poicies you agree with, that’s what you tink they’re going to do. You seem to be saying “the difference between a Republican candidate who supports Democratic policies and a Democratic candidate is that the Republican will support Republican policies.”
I don’t think a president would do something as the executive with one hand, and with the other make judicial appointments that would be expected to reverse or nullify that thing. A pro-gun president is not going to (intentionally) appoint gun-burners to the Court.
I do agree with this. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate for the legislature whom I expect to caucus with a party that favors policies I disapprove of (which currently means caucusing with the Republican), regardless of that candidate’s beliefs, because by caucusing with that party, they will help strengthen it. But if I expect a candidate to vote the Democratic way on partisan policy questions, it follows that I expect that candidate to vote the Democratic way on partisan policy questions.
I don’t know. I’m independent in the sense that I don’t pre-commit to voting for a particular party regardless of who the candidate is. But the positions a candidate for executive-branch offices would have to take to get my vote would almost certainly be anathema in the Republican party, and the changes the Republican party would have to undergo for me to be willing to help strengthen them in any legislature are nearly unthinkable in the next few elections. It’s not blind partisanship, exactly, I just want some things to happen and other things not to happen, and vote accordingly, and the end result is the same.
I think you’re missing the whole point, the political mindset that separates present-day politics from American politics in the 20th century.
Republicans who support Democratic policies do not vote for those policies when proposed by a Democrat. Are you familiar with the “Hastert rule”? The Republican dog is being wagged by the Tea-Party tail. Obamacare started out as a Republican program, but had essentially zero Republican support when proposed by Obama. Moderate Republican Congresspeople who have been willing to vote their consciences have quit in disgust (for example Senator Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine), or go along with the extremists to avoid being been thrown out of office by the Tea Party (for example Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a long-time dealmaker who once boasted of his strong ties to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who “is now one of the most dependable Republican votes in the Senate”).
I’ll address this, as you did, not to start a debate about the issues, but to illustrate the staying and immense power the Supreme Court has, and why that influences elections to those who might otherwise be tempted to cross party lines.
To say Roe v. Wade is a dead letter issue is simply wrong. In 1992, the Court almost overturned it; one vote short. Every single confirmation of a new Justice has this vote in mind. Court watchers behind the scenes are counting votes. It would probably be upheld only by a 5-4 vote today. Say RBG dies in 2017 and President Jeb Bush nominates a replacement. You cannot be seriously suggesting that the nomination would be “bah, no big deal; court won’t touch Roe.” It would be an absolutely war with partisans on each side fighting behind the scenes.
Your second point was that even if the Court overturns Roe, there would be a backlash if women were denied abortions. There would not. Sure, states like California, New York, and the whole of the northeast would allow abortion on demand. How fast do you think Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah would outlaw abortion? In my home state there is already a law against abortion on the books that is not being enforced because of Roe. Overturn Roe and abortion is illegal the very next second.
And, the voters in these states support that. Do you really suggest that in these states there would be outrage over abortion being illegal such that there would be a backlash? I strongly disagree.
So, suppose you are a Democrat who supports abortion rights, gay rights, etc. In 2016, you just happen to think Jeb Bush is better qualified than his opponent. You don’t risk the next 40 years because of the next 4.
I disagree with you thoughts on guns for largely the same reason. Although the NRA does tend to exaggerate, their point stands. If not for the Supreme Court, again in a 5-4 vote, saying that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, then things like handgun bans would be permissible. And you don’t think it is a realistic possibility?
Sure, your state may not do it, but what is to stop Congress under its commerce clause powers from doing it? You don’t think Barack Obama would ban handguns if he had the votes in Congress? So called assault weapons? Training for other gun owners? Licensure and “good cause” needed for other weapons?
Again, not to debate these particular issues, but I disagree with your suggestion that these are dead letter issues and that the Supreme Court is largely irrelevant in them. These are important issues for many Americans, and the Supreme Court has and will remove them from electoral majorities. At the risk of further derailing the thread, it will likely do so again this MONTH in the SSM cases.
TLDR version: If you are generally on one side of the spectrum, but in this particular election, the other party has a better candidate, the lasting power that the Supreme Court holds is much more important to the future of your political beliefs than the mere four years that your preferred individual candidate will be in power.
The abortion issue was not largely settled at the state level. Four states had legalized abortion, and 13 states had liberalized their abortion laws. Public opinion has always been split and more people have always said abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances than have said it should be legal in most or all circumstances. 394 abortion restrictions have been passed by states just since 2000.
There is no consensus.
Even if there were 9 unelected elderly lawyers are uniquely unsuited to understand public opinion. Legislatures and popular referendums are much more likely to reflect public opinion.
This is true for all people. If you describe the same policy to liberals and Democrats as a Democrat policy they are much more likely to favor it and if you describe it as a Republican policy they are much more likely to oppose it. The conservatives and Republicans feel the same way vice versa.
This is a small problem for the national elections but a huge problem for local ones. Most big cities have not had a Republican mayor in decades and have at most a token presence on the city councils. This leads to corruption and stagnation since the elected officials only have to please the hyperpartisan primary voters.