The Fickle Nature of Supreme Court Rule
The Court giveth and the Court taketh away.
Democrats once again are asking themselves what to do about the Supreme Court. Last week’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade has set off a firestorm of controversy. Democrats have been pushed to make all sorts of Court reforms to match the national anger at the loss of a constitutional right. They have discussed packing the Court, instituting term limits, or otherwise passing reforms that will dilute its power as the third branch of government.
Republicans, on the other hand, are the most vocal supporters for the continued power and influence of the Court. They have dropped any Warren Court-era criticisms over judicial activism. Instead, they see the Court as the future of their political agenda and its decisions as giving them free rein over the American political system. As Charles C.W. Cooke noted in National Review, the Court must be respected for simply interpreting the law: “The Supreme Court is a court, and its job is to uphold the law — whether statutory or constitutional — as it actually exists… If a sufficient majority of Americans no longer like the law, they can use their democratic power to change its text. But, until they do so, that text will remain what it is, and the Court will be obliged to interpret it without fear, favor, contrivance, or reference to anything beyond its written terms.”