La batalla por preservar la legitimidad de la Corte Suprema

El presidente del Tribunal Supremo, John Roberts, quiere que la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sea conservadora, noca. This is the message that should be extracted from the topics related to the right to vote, affirmative action and protection of the environment that have come to light in recent weeks.

During his almost 18 years as president, Roberts has constantly led the court to the right, but he has also sought to preserve his reputation and influence by preventing his more radical colleagues from breaking too many precedents. He gave the decisive vote to save Obama twice and, sometimes, he voted with the liberals on the rights of homosexuals and immigration.

En esta época del año pasado, it seemed to be losing the battle and possibly controlling the court. La legada de Amy Connie Barrett había dado la mayor a los jeuses designatos por los republicanos sin el voto de Roberts. Eso fue habilitado por Clarence Thomas, el gobernador con más años de servicio.

El nuevo bloque usó su poder para deshacerse del Roe v. Wade de 1973 que garantizaba el derecho al abortion, a pesar de las objeciones de Roberts. This provoked protests in the whole country and a violent reaction that helped push the Democrats to obtain a better result than expected in the 2022 mid-term elections.

This spring, the tribunal also suffered an avalanche of revelations about the judges’ finances, especially Thomas’ acceptance of trips, obsequies and other forms of support from ostentatious conservative Harlan Crowe.

Liberal predicciones de otra deriva hacia derecha only partially came true this month, as the tribunal confirmed the immigration guidelines of the Biden administration, as well as the law of 1978 sobre derechos tribales en casos de adoption. Roberts has also accumulated majority centrists in two important questions about the right to vote, while drafting resolutions that could obtain the support of both the liberal wing and Brett Kavanaugh.

The majoritarian opinion supported by those five judges surprised electoral rights experts by rejecting a plan for the redistribution of districts in Alabama that softened the influence of black voters, the mayor of Los Culés, Espeban Querestan Corta.

The same caucus also met with Barrett to reject a radical conservative theory that would have brought the state court to almost completely remove the supervision of the elections on the part of the state court. This helps reduce the potential damage in the 2024 elections of state legislatures dominated by Republicans.

The Supreme Court continues to be profoundly conservative in many areas. Ella voted 5-4, with Roberts but no Kavanaugh in the majority, to limit the capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate wetlands, abandoning previous decades.

In the case of limitation by the term, in the career of university admissions, the judges duly ruled 6-3 for the conservative score. Han Rechazado los programs de Harvard y la Universidad de Carolina del Norte que nutren a estudiantes de minorías por violar la garantía constitucional de igual protección ante la ley.

The liberal Sonia Sotomayor wrote en firme desacuerdo que la decisión “devuelve decása de progreso histórico y monumental…[and]Establador una regla Superficial de Daltonimo Como Principio Comisional y Una Sociedad Islanda y Indemica.

Sin ban, even in this case, uno puede ver señales de que tanto Roberts como Kavanaugh están tratando de mejorar la reputation de la corte como un tomador de decisiones justo y consistente.

The majority opinion of Roberts no llegó a prohibir cualquier uso de la raza en las admisiones; hizo una exception con las academias militares de EE. UU., que argantaron que los oficiles debian reflekar la composición racial de la base. Kavanaugh wrote in a separate statement that he believes the decision was consistent with the last time the tribunal considered the positive measure, 20 years ago. In this case, the majority opinion of the then judge Sandra Day O’Connor agreed that the use of the breed would continue in admissions, but suggested that it be detuviera in 2028.

Sige siendo una pregunta abierta si estos gestos geocentricos son suffietes.

A survey from the University of Marquette conducted before the last cases came to light showed that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the performance of judges. The results were polarized according to party lines, with only 24 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans agreeing.

Pero es misho menos may be que los estedidos compartan la opinion de la Corte Suprema sobre el aborto que sobre el aborto positivo. The same survey found that 68 percent believed that abortion should be legal in the majority of cases, but only 24 percent preferred race and acceptance.

Gideon, Usted Is del Reino Unido, Donde las Nominaciones al Court Supremo, Tambien Consido Como la Corte Suprema, son Realizadas por un panel independiente et approbadas por el Ministero de Justicia. Do you think that the politicized nature of the current Supreme Court of the United States is irremediably undermining its legitimacy?

Sugerencias de lectura

• Los candidatos a la nominación presidencial republicana que speculan sobre una guerra con México por Las drogas ilegales, advierte David Frame and The Atlantic, Istan Jugando and Fugo.

• Ozempic and other medicines for diabetes that are waiting for approval for their use to lower weight have appeared much in the news recently. This Washington Post article by Ruth Marcus about her experience and the potential impact of drugs is one of the most honest and reflexive I’ve seen.

• The obituary of Lowell Wicker in The New York Times brought memories of the dissident senator estatal de Connecticut and of the time in which the carpa of the Republican Party included social liberals. “Los Republicanos no ven a sus compatriotos estadounidenses como enemigos a los que acosar”, Declaro Durante las audiencias de Watergate.

• And from the Financial Times, my colleague Sarah Neville wrote an amazing article about Shana Swan, the Berkeley epidemiologist who warned the world about the links between domestic chemical products and the global decline in sperm count.

Gideon Rachman responded

Gran observación y gran pregunta, Brooke. De hecho, la serie de fallos de esta semana ha cambiado para mejor mi opinión sobre la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos.

Antes de esta semana, it was my opinion that, regrettably, the court was politicized so much that in reality it was losing its legitimacy. For me, the first great alarm was the fallo sobre las elecciones de Bush-Gore in 2000, when the court was divided 5-4 in predictable lines between conservatives and liberals. This seemed seriously an expression of political preferences instead of a legal fallo.

Desde Antones, la felicidad de los conservadores —y la desesperación de los liberales— por los nombramientos de Brett Kavangu, Neil Gorsch and Amy Coney Barrett Haser que la corte parezca simplemente otro Escenario en polígor de la politico. The same applies to the last sentence on abortion.

So, why did you change your opinion on the dispositions of this week? Principalmente porque, como usted senala, no siguieron líneas políticas predecibles.

Una regla de acción affirmative complacería a los republicanos y enfadaría a muchos democrats. Por otro lado, como usted cenala, las dispoziones sobreel derecho al voto fuiron and a potentially worse sorpresa para muyuos democratas. A highly politicized pro-Trump court could have laid the foundations for state legislatures dominated by Republicans to veto the results of the presidential elections of 2024, as Donald Trump wanted to see in Georgia and Arizona in 2020!

Otro fallo less commentado que me llamó la atención fue la ratificación por parte de la Corte Suprema de una ley de California que prohíbo la venda de carne de cerdo criada en las granjas industriales más brutales. Esperaba que los conservadores vieran la legislation sobre los derechos de los animals como “despiertos”. Pero and Realidad, Clarence Thomas Votto por mayoria a favor de laley.

Luego está la regla de action affirmative. Bahr Cool Bahr produced El Utido, I Impression La Ceridad and La Francaza de los Ntrk presented El intercambio entre dos jueces negros, Thomas and Kitangi Brown Jackson, and Impression. El lenguaje es directo y emotivo, y me encontré de acuerdo con partes de lo que ambos dijeron.

This is how I should be. Estos no child temas fáciles. Un desperadomente politizado tribunal arrojaría resultados predecibles en un lenguaje insulso. A la Corte Suprema for Fue Mucho Major Essa Semana.

Y ahora noticias de los residents de Swampy. . .

Respondent a “Indio Americano Romance”:
“India Siertamente Necessita Diversificar Sus Fuentes De Armas Por Razones Estrategicas And De Modernidad. Se hará en los terminos de India, no en la forma en que las empresas estadosnicos suelen operar. Como fuente alternativa de herramientas, parts and heramientas, se está quedando atrás. detrás de China en muchos sentidos. Espero que busque impresas estadounidenses que necessitan suministeros alternativos a las empresas privadas no tan estrechamente asociadas con il aparato de modi como Ambani and Adani. Si otras impresas y grupos aceptan el desafio, India in Neficiara y terminos de cuán amplia es la comprendación de esta nueva forma de trabajar” – Ajay Doshi