Fault lies with inaction of Congress, not the Court for polarization
There is a common belief that the Supreme Court, much like the country, is sharply divided along party and ideological lines.
However, recent unanimous decisions by the court and the tendency for both liberal and conservative justices to not always vote based on blocs challenges this belief.
Critics of the court often respond to these facts by stating that in significant cases, especially those with cultural divides, conservative justices form the majority while liberals are in the minority.
While this is sometimes true, such as in the recent Dobbs decision where Roe v. Wade was overturned, it is important to recognize the reverse as well.
When the court does not rule in ideological lines for important cases, critics tend to downplay the significance of those cases.
An instance of this is the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in favor of the pro-abortion-rights side in a case involving the abortion drug mifepristone.
Another example is a decision relating to gun rights where the conservative-leaning justices overturned a Republican administration’s ban on bump stocks.
In both cases, the ideological lines were not as clear-cut as expected, challenging the conventional narrative.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr.’s concurrence with the majority opinion highlighted the need for Congress to take responsibility in amending laws rather than relying on the executive branch to make such decisions.
Congress’s dysfunction in fulfilling its legislative duties contributes to the polarization in politics and the reliance on other branches of government to address key issues.
As the country continues to grapple with political polarization and the role of the Supreme Court and Congress in shaping laws, the stakes of presidential elections and judicial confirmations remain high.
Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and host of The Remnant podcast, shares insights on these challenges in American governance.
Follow him on Twitter @JonahDispatch
