Politicizing the Supreme Court: From Ginsburg to Barrett
By: William Wang
Tags: Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Politics, Law, Amy Coney Barrett

Politicizing the Supreme Court: From Ginsburg to Barrett

In 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed to the court by a 96–3 vote. Less than three decades later, Amy Coney Barret’s vote was 52–48.

The divide wasn’t merely because of shifts in Senate composition. Ginsburg’s confirmation was marked by a spirit of compromise across aisles. 41 Republican senators decided her ability to follow the judicial oath was a more important qualification than her indicated leanings in future litigations. Ginsburg’s colleague Elana Kagan was confirmed in a different scene. With only five Republicans crossing the aisles, Kagan’s confirmation vote was much closer.

Yet this isn’t an issue specific to the GOP. After all, none of the Democrats voted for Barret, marking the closest appointment to the high courts in American history.

This is a symptom of the recent politicization of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this recent movement is neither the intended purpose of the court nor one that would most benefit our nation.

Article III of the Constitution gives justices lifetime appointments. By doing so, the framers intended for minimal public influence on the court’s opinion. If justices were up for election every few years, their interest would be serving the people, with a blatant disregard for interpreting the law. Servitude to the public interest was the job of the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary.

This was the case throughout the two centuries since the founding of our country. Up until the 1980s, unanimous confirmations were prevalent, appointing liberals like Justice Stevens and conservatives such as Justice Scalia. The Senate voted based on justices’ ability to interpret statutes, not their political alignment.

From left to right, the Supreme Court justices in 1976: John Paul Stevens, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Harry A. Blackmun, William H. Rehnquist, Thurgood Marshall, William J. Brennan Jr., Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Potter Stewart, and Byron R. White. Yoichi Okamoto/Science Source

Unfortunately, this tradition is no longer being upheld. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold a hearing for Obama appointee Merrick Garland, scapegoating the then approaching presidential election. This facade masked the despair of the GOP: a third Obama appointee to replace retiring Justice Kennedy would solidify a liberal majority on the court.

Faced with Ginsberg’s passing, McConnell and other members of the GOP revealed their true intentions. Completely abandoning their practice of allowing elections to precede court nominations, the Republican majority senate rushed through Barrett’s confirmation. In a bitterly divided vote, Barrett’s confirmation hardened a firmly conservative majority on our highest court.

To preserve the revered judicial institution, Congress should separate the Supreme Court from its own agendas. Only by doing so will we separate politics from the law. Our judiciary shouldn’t be another extension of the other two branches of governments, but rather a check against it.