Carte Blanche: Congress or SCOTUS, whose job is it anyway?

Emily Studer

"Laziness is the mother of all evils." — Sophocles

It should come as a surprise to no one that, on average, human beings are more likely to be lazy than they are to be proactive or hardworking. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court is exempt from human nature. However, this is one field of human endeavor in which they both seem to excel, but if one were guiltier of the Sin of Sloth, it would, of course, be Congress. With increasing reliability, the nation's legislature has made it its business to ensure that the highest court in the land is filled not with the greatest legal scholars of their time nor with judges who would ensure that legislation couldn’t be passed in direct conflict with the Constitution. Instead, they ensured that those who would meet their political or ideological needs sat on the bench for as long as possible. The 21st Century has seen growing public impatience with such behavior, yet Congress has done nothing to address it. From failing to legalize abortion nationally to defining what an American Citizen is or isn’t as prescribed by the 14th Amendment, Congress has overplayed its hand in doing nothing to move the country forward, and SCOTUS has helped in this endeavor time and again. Why? because it’s easier than trying, and the best consolation prize of all is that come election time, they can blame others for their failures or lack of action. The two branches of government enable complacency, and neither seems poised to do much about it.

To understand SCOTUS's purpose in the modern age, it is best to examine how judges are appointed to the bench. The Constitution is clear in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 that the President alone has the power to appoint the justices, but Congress must confirm them. Their appointments are lifetime, and depending on their age and health, they can have a significant impact on legislation and its interpretation. As such, their appointments are seen as rare opportunities to align the court more with the benefit of maintaining the Constitution or to see that it is interpreted in a way that protects and preserves the rights of all Americans. But rather to ensure that whichever party has the majority at the time of their appointment gains an edge in getting laws viewed positively or not considered worth the courts' time in their favor. For instance, SCOTUS has been expanded multiple times throughout the nation's history because the Constitution does not specify how many Justices there should be. It’s accepted that it must be an odd number, so there are no ties and a clear ruling. However, the arguments made are not that the court would be more efficient or more practical. Instead, the argument being made currently is that those Justices who are ideologically aligned with conservatives hold too large a majority. Therefore, if the court were to expand those on the liberal side of the aisle, it could ensure more justices align with their beliefs, thereby swaying the ruling in their favor. The central argument is one of victory, not of justice.

The recent appointments of Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson are examples of the political theatre involved in the process of gaining Congressional approval for political reasons. Justice Kavanaugh was publicly humiliated and dragged through the public commons, not for his rulings, not for accepting bribes, nor for unfair sentencing, but because of his drunken partying in college decades ago. There were accusations of sexual harassment, and he was debased in front of his wife and children, as well as the nation, for vague accusations that had neither credible evidence nor witnesses that seemed interested in anything but defaming him and ensuring he wasn’t confirmed. Justice Brown-Jackson was subjected to harassment because of her age and her skin color. Less of their judicial careers or achievements were discussed, and more time was spent on defaming them, or, in the case of Justice Brown-Jackson, her ability to define what a woman is, according to Republicans. Ideology and preferred policies were on display rather than a commitment to the nation's welfare or the careful implementation of its laws. Countless hours and millions of dollars were wasted on identifying and confirming judges to the highest court in the land so that members of Congress could create sound bites and snippets to raise money for their campaigns and continue to enjoy the privileges of their offices. It was nothing less than theater for its own sake, while the nation continues to slowly buckle under the weight not just of its decisions but of their inability to decide altogether.

In June 2022, SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, thus ending the constitutional right to abortion. Ideologically, it was a victory for conservatives who had long pushed to have it struck down. In the end, it wasn’t a victory for anyone, and it exposed how little Congress acts on the will of the people. Despite roughly 60% of Americans believing it should be legal in all or most cases, and multiple democratic administrations controlling all three branches of government. No legislation has been passed to legalize. Instead, they allowed the court to rule on it and, finding the Roe v. Wade ruling in their favor, considered it enough of a win to do nothing else. Similarly, as SCOTUS reviews the case brought before it regarding President Trump's Executive Order on birthright citizenship, both parties have had decades, if not more than a century and a half, to clarify and define what determines citizenship for those born on American soil. Fearing backlash from their bases for either acting or failing to act, both parties have left it to the courts to settle the matter. Putting the nation in the midst of ever-greater turmoil. Bringing to the forefront of the nation's discussion issues that could’ve been settled amicably multiple times but were ignored for fear of a loss of face or campaign funds, instead of the harm done to the nation if they failed to act.

There is no doubt that sloth is one of the seven deadly sins. At least, if trying something new or different leads to failure, the idea of acting is a known, considered option. With laziness, there is only the drive to do nothing too difficult or to disturb the status quo. For all that America is currently and most certainly going to endure in the future, the culprit is nothing less than absolute laziness by those elected to something, if not anything at all. Whose job is it to solve this problem? Congress. The court is there to hold them to account, but neither is willing to do so. Therefore, as it has and always must be, the American people are the ones who can and must do something about it. The time has come to demand action and remove from office through elections or impeachment those who still won’t budge. There is a need for great change, and the people must see it carried out before change is forced upon everyone. Luckily, Americans are those who do best when things look bleakest.