[ad_1]
This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We’re working to change the way the media covers the Supreme Court. Sign up for the pop-up newsletter to receive our latest updates, and support our work when you join Slate Plus.
In the coming weeks, the billionaire-backed majority on the Supreme Court will decide an enormous range of critical cases, from whether to end efforts to achieve equality in higher education to whether businesses can discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, just to name two. We cannot know how decisions will come down, but the safe bet indicates we’ll see more blows to our freedoms and more power handed to the wealthiest few.
Progressives looking to turn around these losses actually have an unprecedented opportunity to step up, speak out, and set ourselves up for electoral gains by bringing the Supreme Court to the fore of public attention—and framing its actions correctly.
To be sure, the top concern generally on voters’ minds is what’s in their wallets, not what’s on Supreme Court dockets. This helps explain why Democrats have been tepid, at best, in responding to the ongoing radicalization of the court. It was more than two years ago that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer offered stern words about how the court would “pay the price” if it overturned Roe v. Wade—a warning that was ignored when the court did just that in last year’s Dobbs—and got a stiff rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. Since then, beyond a recent tweet criticizing the court for handing corporations license to poison our water, Schumer has said next to nothing.
Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, in response to Justice Clarence Thomas’ ethical lapses and pay-to-play palling with billionaire Harlan Crowe, sent Roberts a letter stating that “something has to be done.” But Durbin, the one Democratic congressional figure with subpoena power and oversight authority to make sure something is done, has not cast himself as the agent in that doing.
Democratic leaders must overcome their unwillingness to address, let alone press, the existential crisis that rising authoritarianism presents, this time cloaked in judicial robes. Like the Jan. 6 committee hearings showed, this isn’t merely the right thing to do; it’s also good politics—exposing to voters what’s on the line and animating them to come out in defiance. Indeed, new research I’ve helped conduct indicates that voters are alarmed by the Supreme Court’s rightward shift, see its economic implications, and are ready to vote accordingly.
In May, the Research Collaborative, a group that I advise, fielded a 1,400-person survey with Lake Research Partners on the Supreme Court. Voters agreed, by double-digit margins, that the Supreme Court “rules for wealthy and powerful few” and that its “decisions take away our freedoms.” Conversely, positive descriptors that the court “has made the right decisions lately,” that it “ensures everyone has equal justice under the law,” and that its “decisions protect our freedoms” were all underwater—most by double digits.
In a split sample experiment, among respondents asked whether a potential president’s Supreme Court nominations factored into their past voting decisions, 79 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of independent voters responded affirmatively. These numbers rose to 90 percent and 76 percent, respectively, for respondents answering about whom they will consider for president in 2024. Similarly, 73 percent of Democrats and 86 percent of independents said they’d factor support for a Supreme Court candidate into how they voted in future congressional elections, up from 39 percent and 51 percent, respectively.
After hearing a list of recent and pending cases, we asked voters forced-choice questions in order to guard against acquiescence bias. Fifty-four percent “worry that the majority on the Supreme Court is taking away our freedoms,” as opposed to 33 percent who “believe that the Supreme Court is doing its job upholding the law and Constitution,” with 14 percent unsure. Moreover, by a margin of 52–29, voters believe that the Supreme Court is “part of a larger authoritarian movement” as opposed to “acting independently,” leaving 19 percent unsure.
The picture this research paints is clear: Many voters need someone to fill in the blanks for them on what to make of the Supreme Court. And this requires relentlessly repeated messaging that brings what’s at stake into stark relief, lest the centrality of this threat take a back seat to the realities of people’s lives. As 538 reported on Tuesday, net approval for the Supreme Court—while still 2 points underwater—has recovered from its nadir of -8 percentage points in July 2022. What plunged this institution from historically positive aggregate reviews to this point? The Dobbs decision to take away Americans’ freedom to decide and, of course, the constant public discourse that put this issue front and center. As soon as that pressure stops or slows, the court’s standing is given the unearned opportunity to recover.
The coalition Democrats relied upon in the past three elections is newly ready to view the Supreme Court as an electoral issue. Democrats can reach conflicted voters and mobilize disaffected voters of the party by drawing the through line between what’s happening across red states, among House Republicans, and in Supreme Court rulings. Namely, that a powerful few have purchased themselves what amount to kickbacks from MAGA Republicans in Congress and favorable rulings from MAGA justices on the Supreme Court in order to take away both our freedoms and the wealth that working people create.
If there were anything for Democrats to learn from the averted “red wave” last year, it’s that you win debates—and elections—by setting the terms. Had the midterms been the usual referendum on the incumbent president and economic conditions, precedent and pundits would have been right and Democrats would have been doomed. But instead, in the places and races where Democrats prevailed, it was because they brought abortion, Jan. 6, and the need to protect our freedoms top of mind. We must once again apply that same wisdom to how we confront the MAGA justices on the Supreme Court—making clear to voters that our freedoms, our families, and our futures are still very much on the line.
[ad_2]
Source link