For the People?

The U.S. Supreme Court made news last week by agreeing to hear a case next term that could enable the newly enlarged conservative supermajority to erode or even reverse abortion rights throughout the country. I was already primed for disdain of the Court, having just recently finished reading a book by Adam Cohen, Supreme Inequality.

The book's subtitle hides nothing of the author's thesis: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America. The introduction frames a compelling argument that almost everything that liberal-minded people tend to think about the Supreme Court is wrong. "It's a backstop for justice, a champion for the little guy, a bastion of hope for people who the system has otherwise wronged." Cohen argues that it was, for a too-brief 15 year period under Chief Justice Earl Warren, but that in the 50 years since, landmark rulings protecting those with less power have otherwise been shockingly few and far between.

I'm not sure there's a clear organization to the chapters that follow, but each one is well argued unto itself. Perhaps it's just that there are so many examples of injustice to choose from that it defies any organizational principle. The book goes on to look at cases where rights were at stake for voters, workers, targets of discrimination, and much, much more. Almost always, the Court majority chips away at equality, any reasonable concept of fairness, even self-determination.

Remember the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, asks Adam Cohen? How, aside from the allegations of sexual misconduct against him, many feared the Court would lurch sharply to the right with him on it? (The book was written before Amy Coney Barrett was appointed.) That only represented a small move from just how far to the right the Court already was. The last time the Court was anything close to centrist or left? You'd have to go back to when Richard Nixon applied political pressure to force the resignation of Abe Fortas in 1969.

I find it rather surprising, though, that the book does not go on to offer any conclusions or proposals in response. Does the author simply find the situation hopeless? Or think it sufficient to simply shame? After making the case so thoroughly for why the Supreme Court should change, it feels like a glaring omission that it makes no arguments as to how. Term limits? Additional members? Something else?

As far a recommendation goes? Well, you might not need any more rage over politics in your life right now. But Supreme Inequality is a rather brisk read for a heavy topic. It makes clear and accessible many case names you may have heard of without fully understanding (Buckley v. Valeo, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, etc). I would give the book a B overall. It may not be recreational reading for most people, but it's a potent case for why liberal voters -- who tend not to prioritize the Supreme Court enough -- should care.