Over the decades, the Supreme Court has slowly outsourced accountability to lower courts, giving higher state courts increasing power over public policy. In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court regularly ruled more. 150 cases over a period of time. In the last full period, only 62 cases have been heard. Worse still, a 2014 Reuters survey found that lawsuits are increasingly being heard by a select group of lawyers, many of whom “work primarily for law firms with corporate interests.”
And the Supreme Court, among the fallen cases dir-dir In reading, he often limited the scope of his powers, especially as regards the right to vote. Take the 2019 Guerrilla Gerimanderingi case, in which the conservative majority in court raised their guns and said the case was out of reach, leaving state courts as the primary court for handling grueling disputes. Similarly, in the 2018 gay rights case and the 2021 Texas Abortion Restriction Act cases, a court found it could not rule on key legal issues, so they are still pending in state courts. (It so happens that Republicans benefited most from this particular interpretation of the judiciary.)
When the Supreme Court delegated its responsibilities, the powers of the state Supreme Courts were expanded. Unsurprisingly, corporate interests have been noticed. There are 38 supreme or state court judges elected or re-elected after they are appointed – as in the United States, in nearly every competitive election, hefty money has a big impact on this race. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, wealthy donors and interest groups (often funded by company money) have donated nearly $ 100 million in the 2019-2020 state election cycle court election, the highest level since the Center began monitoring. those numbers in 2000.
Who specifically spends so much money? Most of the time, we just don’t know. this united citizens The decision (another major success for John Roberts’ court of first instance) made it significantly easier for interest groups to spend on elections without disclosing their sources of funding. As Stephen Landsman, a law professor and civil jury expert, says, the verdict “extended the door of black money” in judicial campaigns.
The result is huge business expenses, often by companies sued for malicious behavior. In 2017, Alicia Bannon and her team chased $ 5 million at the Brennan Center for Justice, which turned into a race to win a seat on the Louisiana State Supreme Court. They traced much of that figure to “oil and gas companies and lawyers for opposing contenders who determined whether these companies would have to pay for environmental cleanup costs due to past drilling.”
This is worrying, especially considering the future of democracy in the state’s supreme courts. Even with positive solutions, we have seen a lot of close calls. Supreme Court of Wisconsin He announced that the 4th to 3rd in 2020 will not sue the Trump campaign, which is trying to remove more than 200,000 votes. Room regular 4 to 3 Democratic Governor Tony Evers (Wise) to get congressional maps and maintain voter access for absentees for this year’s primary election. In any case, a casting vote? Liberal judge Jill Karofsky was elected to the Fury in 2020.
In some states, the judiciary is the only way between democracy and permanent rule of minorities by right-wing ideologues. Protecting these courts in the short term requires raising as many resources as possible to counter the huge corporate costs in this race. And in the long run, it takes a tough fiscal reform campaign to stop the inflationary rush of black money.
Most of these reforms do not even require the abolition of the Supreme Court. united citizens. As law professor and public policy expert Ebi Wood points out, united citizens It does not interfere with Congress or agencies such as the Federal Election Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the IRS that regulate money in judicial elections. States also have a long way to go. Limiting the influence of company money in elections: from requiring judges to use public funding, to tightening rules on financial disclosure and eliminating judicial elections altogether. In other words, this is not a case of government dysfunction sacrificing us to a troubled and indefinite life. Change is possible, but prudent allied leaders in mass movements will have to demand a better system and the media will not be affected by the focus of this problem.
If we don’t see any real movement in expanding the judiciary, the Supreme Court will be intended to be a deeply conservative body for decades. However, this fate has not been fully determined for the judiciary. It is time to get rid of the influence of state courts and big capital and establish a judicial system that fulfills the words above the voice of the Supreme Court: “Equal justice before the law”.
Source: Washington Post
John Cameron is a journalist at The Nation View specializing in world news and current events, particularly in international politics and diplomacy. With expertise in international relations, he covers a range of topics including conflicts, politics and economic trends.