Reader's View: Supreme Court needs to win back our trust

Our U.S. Supreme Court is in danger of being remembered in history as partisan and biased. Its legitimacy is increasingly under question.

The very composition of the court is suspect. Following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, fully seven months before the November election. However, Garland’s candidacy was blocked by Sen. Mitch McConnell, who refused to hold hearings and deemed nominations by the sitting president “null and void” until after the election. Four years later, McConnell’s rush to confirm Amy Coney Barrett following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just seven weeks before the 2020 election, highlighted the hypocrisy and partisan manipulation surrounding the court.

The court’s impartiality was already doubtful following its 2010 Citizens United decision, which deemed corporations people for the purposes of campaign contributions. This bizarre departure from constitutional law undermined our democracy and enabled powerful corporate entities to dominate elections through financial influence. Political campaigns have become high-stakes bidding wars, with large contributors essentially purchasing favored politicians. The harm caused by this decision may last for generations.

The court is also plagued by concerns about its competence and ethics. Several originalist justices interpret the Constitution as understood at its signing yet overlook straightforward phrases such as “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment. Thousands of deaths have resulted from this misreading. Meanwhile, the court lacks a binding code of ethics to prevent justices or their families from accepting gifts (bribes) from parties with vested interests in its decisions, raising significant corruption concerns.

We rely on the court to safeguard democracy, but its current trajectory undermines that trust. By addressing its partisanship, the fallout from Citizens United, inconsistent interpretations, and ethical lapses, the court can begin restoring confidence in its role as guardian of the Constitution and democracy.

Charles Gessert

Duluth