With support from the University of Richmond

History News Network

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

To Tame a Far-Right Supreme Court, Let’s Revive This Forgotten Proposal from 1922

The nar­row­ly ​“tex­tu­al­ist” and ​“orig­i­nal­ist” prin­ci­ples to which Bar­rett sub­scribes, inevitably car­ry con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal impli­ca­tions. From such a mind­set, any leg­is­la­tion that would expand health insur­ance, union rights, envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tion, as well as abor­tion access is like­ly in deep trou­ble. For Feld­man, how­ev­er, Barrett’s ​“views about how to inter­pret the law that I think are wrong and, in cer­tain respects, mis­guid­ed” are more than bal­anced by her being among the best and bright­est in her cohort. Ah, if only we could use the LSATs to choose all our fed­er­al officials!

What steps might a Demo­c­ra­t­ic Con­gress, take in 2021 to pro­tect the coun­try from a judi­cial super-major­i­ty defined by Jus­tices Roberts, Ali­to, Thomas, Gor­such, Kavanaugh, and Bar­rett? Most jour­nal­is­tic com­men­tary has cen­tered on ​“court-pack­ing” ideas harken­ing back to Pres­i­dent Franklin Roosevelt’s ulti­mate­ly foiled attempt in 1937 to expand the court from nine to as many as fif­teen jus­tices to pre­vent its undo­ing his entire New Deal pro­gram. This was (and remains) a messy solu­tion, for it turns pub­lic scruti­ny from an unde­mo­c­ra­t­ic, reac­tionary judi­cial branch to a seem­ing­ly over­reach­ing exec­u­tive authority. 

In FDR’s case, his­to­ri­ans sug­gest, the mere threat of rad­i­cal judi­cial surgery proved enough to tem­per the impulse towards judi­cial review, and for decades the court large­ly refrained from coun­ter­mand­ing major eco­nom­ic law-mak­ing by state and fed­er­al leg­isla­tive majori­ties. On the oth­er hand, the bit­ter polit­i­cal after-taste from the court-pack­ing fight helped to fuel a Repub­li­can resur­gence in Con­gres­sion­al elec­tions to come.

But his­tor­i­cal antecedents to the court-pack­ing plan offer oth­er keys to a still-use­able past. By the 1920s, the Supreme Court had tru­ly become a bul­wark of cor­po­rate priv­i­lege, act­ing against lim­i­ta­tions on union black­list­ing in Kansas in 1915, over­turn­ing the fed­er­al child labor law in 1918, and throw­ing out a min­i­mum wage for women work­ers in Wash­ing­ton D.C. in 1923. Chief Jus­tice and ex-Pres­i­dent William Howard Taft (1921−1930) cheered on such moves by open­ly rail­ing against ​“social­ist raids upon prop­er­ty rights.”

As the courts increas­ing­ly detached them­selves from pub­lic opin­ion on key issues of nation­al wel­fare, they came under increas­ing crit­i­cism from pro­gres­sive cir­cles. Indeed, with a focus on mis-use of injunc­tions and con­tempt cita­tions in labor dis­putes, Theodore Roosevelt’s Pro­gres­sive Par­ty in 1912 pri­or­i­tized ​“restric­tion of the pow­er of the courts as shall leave to the peo­ple the ulti­mate author­i­ty to deter­mine fun­da­men­tal ques­tions of social wel­fare and pub­lic pol­i­cy.” The Social­ist Par­ty led by Eugene V. Debs went fur­ther, advo­cat­ing a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment to abol­ish judi­cial review of leg­isla­tive acts altogether.

Two tan­gi­ble nation­al reform ideas fol­lowed in the next decade. As doc­u­ment­ed by his­to­ri­an Steven F. Law­son, Wisconsin’s Pro­gres­sive Sen­a­tor Robert ​“Fight­ing Bob” La Fol­lette intro­duced a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment in 1922 (nev­er put to a Con­gres­sion­al vote) where­by Con­gress would have the right to re-enact –and thus enact for good — any law ruled uncon­sti­tu­tion­al by the Supreme Court. In the same year, Repub­li­can Sen. William Borah of Ida­ho pro­posed a dif­fer­ent reform tack: hop­ing to restrict judi­cial review to only the most egre­gious vio­la­tions of indi­vid­ual rights, his plan required any judi­cial over­ride by the Supreme Court to car­ry at min­i­mum a 7 to 2 court majority.

Beyond grap­pling with a sin­gle Supreme Court appoint­ment, it behooves today’s pro­gres­sives to chal­lenge all those still infect­ed by what the emi­nent judi­cial biog­ra­ph­er Alpheus Mason in 1958 labeled the ​“cult of the judi­cial robe.” As La Fol­lette apt­ly warned, “[Should the Court keep] the final and con­clu­sive author­i­ty to deter­mine what laws Con­gress may pass, then, obvi­ous­ly, the Court is the real ruler of the coun­try exact­ly the same as the absolute King would be.” 

Read entire article at In These Times