Source: TruthDig

The Supreme Court concluded its October 2022 term with three reactionary rulings. In rapid succession, it ended affirmative action in college admissionsoverturned President Biden’s student debt forgiveness program; and held that an evangelical Christian graphic designer has a First Amendment right to refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings.

Biden reacted quickly, issuing separate statements on each of the decisions. He condemned them as wrongly decided, painful and disappointing, and promised to develop strategies to counter their impacts. But he stopped short of backing the only reform that can reverse the Supreme Court’s extreme rightward turn: expanding the court and filling the new seats with liberal jurists if he is reelected and the Democrats galvanize their base to retake both houses of Congress in 2024. 

To his credit, Biden was forceful in rebuking the court’s 6-3 majority opinion on affirmative action written by Chief Justice John Roberts.Related The Supreme Court’s War on the Future

“For 45 years,” he said in a televised address delivered on June 29 from the Roosevelt Room at the White House, “the United States Supreme Court has recognized a college’s freedom to decide…how to build diverse student bodies to meet their responsibility of opening doors of opportunity for every single American. In case after case…the court has affirmed…that colleges could use race not as a determinative factor for admission, but as one of the factors among many in deciding who [sic] to admit from a… qualified pool of applicants.”

He added, “Today, the court once again walked away from decades of precedent” …and issued a decision that as the dissent [written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor] states, ‘rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress.’”

Biden also rebutted the insidious myth that affirmative action leads to the admission of unqualified students, and pledged his support for new measures to bolster diversity in higher education.

As he was leaving the room, a reporter shouted out, “President Biden, the Congressional Black Caucus said the Supreme Court has ‘thrown into question its own legitimacy.’ Is this a rogue court?”

Biden paused for a moment, smiled slightly and turned toward the reporter. “This is not a normal court,” he answered. Without further comment, he exited through a side door. 

Later that afternoon, in an interview with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace, Biden was asked what he meant by his answer. He replied that the court has “done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history, and that’s what I meant by not normal.” He cited last year’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, and observed that the court has “ruled on a number of issues that … had been precedent for 50, 60 years sometimes.”

But he also flatly shot down growing calls by progressives for court expansion, saying, “I think if we start the process of trying to expand the court, we’re going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy.”

Given the Supreme Court’s recent track record and its virtually unchecked power, such inaction can no longer be justified.

Biden is a steadfast opponent of court expansion. Throughout the 2020 campaign, when repeatedly pressed on the issue, he promised to convene a blue-ribbon commission to study the need for court reform. He made good on that promise in April 2021 when he issued an executive order that created a bipartisan member panel of former federal judges, high-powered attorneys and law professors to examine the pros and cons, not only of expansion, but also such measures as term limits for Supreme Court justices and ethics reforms aimed at establishing a binding code of judicial conduct for the court, which remains the only federal judicial body that operates without a code.

In the end, however, the commission issued a 288-page final report the following December that can charitably be described as a dud. Apart from tepid and vague language endorsing increased transparency in the court’s internal procedures and the adoption of an “advisory” [but not mandatory] code of conduct, the commission failed to advance any concrete proposals. In the words of The Nation columnist Elie Mystal, the entire endeavor “was designed to fail” from the start, and was “set up to give the president and Senate Democrats cover for total inaction.”

Given the Supreme Court’s recent track record and its virtually unchecked power, such inaction can no longer be justified. With its six-member Republican supermajority, including three justices appointed by Donald Trump, the court is driving the country and American law backward.

The court’s extremism is inflaming voter anger and will likely be a key driver of turnout in the 2024 election. Biden should be shrewd enough to harness that anger. It is not sufficient for him to acknowledge that the Supreme Court isn’t “normal.” It’s time for him to recognize that the court is broken, and the only way to fix it is to expand it.


This article was originally published by TruthDig; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.

Bill Blum is a Los Angeles lawyer and a former state of California administrative law judge.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.

Donate
Donate
Leave A Reply

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

Institute for Social and Cultural Communications, Inc. is a 501(c)3 non-profit.

Our EIN# is #22-2959506. Your donation is tax-deductible to the extent allowable by law.

We do not accept funding from advertising or corporate sponsors.  We rely on donors like you to do our work.

ZNetwork: Left News, Analysis, Vision & Strategy

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

THE WIND CRIES FREEDOM

The Wind Cries Freedom, the new book from Z co-founder Michael Albert, is a sweeping oral history of a future American revolution.

Through thirty interconnected chapters, it draws out the strategies, failures, turning points, and hard-won wisdom of a movement that called itself the Revolutionary Participatory Society. These are not the polished memoirs of politicians: they are the unfiltered accounts of people who organized in neighborhoods, hospitals, universities, stadiums, courthouses, and places of worship, and kept a shared vision alive through cynicism and exhaustion.

The result is speculative political fiction that reads like history: messy, human, and quietly hopeful in the way that only real experience and long thought can produce.

Get your copy and peruse more features on the book’s website below.

“Read it, argue with it, but don’t look away. The future it recalls is one we must still fight to deserve.”

Yanis Varoufakis

“The most unusual and intriguing combination of prophecy, manifesto, and movement building manual that I have ever encountered.”

Bill Fletcher Junior

“This work fills a huge gap in our social movement literature.”

Cynthia Peters

You've just read your article on Z this month.

DOES Z'S SURVIVAL MATTER?

You keep coming back for a reason: serious political analysis, movement reporting, and debate beyond the priorities of corporate media. Today, Z is in a precarious financial position. If Z is part of how you understand the world, help keep it going. The readers who give monthly are the reason this work survives between fundraisers.

Z is in a precarious financial position. If it’s part of how you understand the world, help keep it going.

Number of donors709
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Already a sustainer? Click here and we won’t ask again. Thank you!

Your reading count is stored only in your browser and is never sent to us.

Sound is muted by default.  Tap 🔊 for the full experience

CRITICAL ACTION

Critical Action is a longtime friend of Z and a music and storytelling project grounded in liberation, solidarity, and resistance to authoritarian power. Through music, narrative, and multimedia, the project engages the same political realities and movement traditions that guide and motivate Z’s work.

If this project resonates with you, you can learn more about it and find ways to support the work using the link below.

Z is in the most precarious financial position in its history.

Z is a place to think beyond the limits of the present.

For decades, Z has brought together political analysis, movement reporting, debate, and visions of a different future from writers and activists around the world. That work is more than journalism. It is movement infrastructure: movements need places to develop ideas, test arguments, learn from experience, and imagine what comes next.

In the first two days of this fundraiser, 19 donors and 8 new monthly sustainers stepped up. Help us reach 1,000 donors who keep Z independent, for everyone.

For decades, Z has published the analysis, debate, and visions movements need, free of paywalls, ads, and billionaire owners. If that work should continue, Z needs your support now.

Number of donors709
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Subscribe

Join the Z Community – receive event invites, announcements, a Weekly Digest, and opportunities to engage.

Exit mobile version