by: Brooke Harley
As ordinary people that live in the United States, each and every one of us is affected by both the Law and the Culture that surrounds us every day. In the age of social media and the polarization of liberal and conservative beliefs, we have come to see law and culture intersect in a multitude of new areas. As this particular series takes a deep-dive into Law and Culture and the multitude of discussions surrounding it, I believe that it is worth taking a critical look into one of the sources guiding the laws that impact our everyday lives. The Supreme Court is the highest law-enforcing governing body in the United States. Every aspect of law is dictated by the Court’s decisions and rulings, based on their interpretation of the Constitution and other prior legislation. The Supreme Court was established to be a fundamentally non-partisan body that balances out the very partisan legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government. And yet, after the recent decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade, an influx in reports and commentaries debate whether the Supreme Court has remained a partisan entity. With this discussion comes questions regarding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as well as whether the Court still serves the public as a whole. After gathering opinions from a variety of sources, I’ve analyzed the discussion from each side of the aisle. Being as though the culture of division in politics is very prevalent in this case, what exactly is being discussed?
With the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, many socially liberal individuals have become outraged about why and how such a prominent and monumental case could be overruled. In the last four years, three justices were replaced by the same (largely disliked) president, who didn’t even win the popular vote, at the hands of the minority leader of the House of Representatives. This created a base for criticism largely from liberals regarding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a non-partisan entity. Many of the conversations surrounds the two most recent appointments to the Supreme Court, and Mitch McConnell’s actions during the hearings in the house. The minority party leader was able to block the previous President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, claiming that “No Justice should be appointed during an election year”. Four years later, McConnell pushed his own party’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, onto the bench to replace Justice Ginsburg, just five weeks away from the next presidential election revealing that his thoughts about appointing justices during election years had ulterior motives. The liberal ideology towards the Supreme Court is one that is generally described as believing in a “living constitution”, meaning that the constitution should be interpreted during Court rulings to reflect the way people live today, and shouldn’t be strictly adhered to. Being as this differs greatly from the conservative “originalist” ideology about how the constitution should be interpreted, media conversations focus largely on the idea that the conservative point of view is outdated and no longer effective, despite the fact that now two thirds of Supreme Court justices subscribe to a more conservative ideology. Much of the discourse surrounding the difference in party ideologies also includes comments about Donald Trump, a very unpopular president with liberals. These mentions include comments about how Trump claimed that this would happen if he had the chance to appoint justices, likely an attempt to get the public to associate the conservative viewpoint with Donald Trump, creating a negative connotation. Another common criticism of the Supreme Court is that not only are liberals unnerved, but conservative Justices share the sentiment about how bad the Court looks after overturning Roe v. Wade. The liberal media makes sure to emphasize Justice Roberts’ statements regarding how the recent ruling divides the country specifically about how unnecessary it really was. Justice Roberts, who is known to be conservative, has made it known that although he is not upset by the ruling, he fears what it will do to the public’s view and support of the Supreme Court. Liberal-leaning media outlets make an effort to include statements from conservative legislators regarding how the recent ruling divides the country, and has sparked so much conversation regarding the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and how unnecessary it really was. It’s clear that the discussion and framing of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court from a liberal point of view is meant to be a conversation about whether this branch of the government continues to serve the public the way it should, and whether it remains the non-partisan and non-biased entity that it was always meant to be.
While liberals clearly have their own thoughts and opinions regarding the Supreme Court, there are just as many opposing opinions that come from the conservative side of the aisle. Many individuals that subscribe to a socially conservative ideology saw the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a win and most of the criticism regarding the Supreme Court comes more in support of the branch and targets the liberal discussion. A primary criticism of the liberal media targets the idea that there is only a discussion of the court’s legitimacy because they didn’t get their way in the ruling, with comments made about a minority of the public being so loud in the media, that we think more people are not in support of the decision than are. This sparks discourse from conservatives stating that challenging the Supreme Court and its functioning is a very serious allegation, and risks the public losing trust in the branch based on opinion, rather than the true functioning of the court. In response to the liberal point made that the constitution is outdated and from a completely different time period, conservative media argues that the constitution has supported a well functioning and successful government and nation for centuries, so although it may be old, it does its job. Claims made about how our Constitution and government structure have gotten us through so many historical crises, prove that something must be working. Much of the language used in these conversations uses words like “delegitimize” and mentions of majority versus minority, likely to emphasize how the court is still a legitimate entity, and to point out just how focused on the partisan aspect the liberal media has become. Now the criticism that the conservative media makes directly at the Supreme Court deals mostly with how they should not be influenced by the public’s opinion on certain topics and cases, tying into the conservative belief that the Constitution should be followed explicitly, and the Justices that sit on the bench are the best fit to do so. Generally speaking, the conservative media frames their opinions based on the idea that the court is not operating any differently than it always has, and that liberals should not criticize the branch and jeopardize its legitimacy on the basis of emotion and opinion.
The overruling of Roe v. Wade caused much discourse between cable news networks and has truly reinforced the culture of division surrounding political discussion. Where one side argues, the other will always disagree, and the legitimacy and functioning of the Supreme Court is not an exception to the rule. Conservatives will defend their party while liberals will criticize it and vice versa for as long as the two party political structure exists. However, should one party be able to influence and swing the court’s rulings so much in just four years, the structure of the Supreme Court itself is fundamentally challenged. And although ideally the court should not rule on the basis of opinion, it is clear that recently, it has. The decision about Roe v. Wade sets a very serious and ominous precedent for how easily the Supreme Court can change, and who really holds the power to change it.
