A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other: The Deepening Divide Between the Justices and the People

by Kevin J. McMahon Narrated by Auto-narrated

Overview

A data-rich examination of the US Supreme Court's unprecedented detachment from the democratic processes that buttress its legitimacy.

Today's Supreme Court is unlike any other in American history. This is not just because of its jurisprudence but also because the current Court has a tenuous relationship with the democratic processes that help establish its authority. Historically, this “democracy gap” was not nearly as severe as it is today. Simply put, past Supreme Courts were constructed in a fashion far more in line with the promise of democracy-that the people decide and the majority rules.

Drawing on historical and contemporary data alongside a deep knowledge of court battles during presidencies ranging from FDR to Donald Trump, Kevin J. McMahon charts the developments that brought us here. McMahon offers insight into the altered politics of nominating and confirming justices, the shifting pool of Supreme Court hopefuls, and the increased salience of the Court in elections. A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other is an eye-opening account of today's Court within the context of US history and the broader structure of contemporary politics.

Editorial Reviews

Choice

"McMahon offers a compelling argument that the membership of the Supreme Court has become increasingly distant from American citizenry in the last several decades. . . .The book’s research is meticulous, its argument is persuasive, and its importance is politically imperative."

Stephen Engel | coauthor of "Disrupting Dignity: Rethinking Power and Progress in LGBTQ Lives"

Beautifully written, comprehensive, and understandable, A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other blends empirical analysis with captivating legal historical anecdotes to make sense of the increasing legitimacy crisis that faces the contemporary US Supreme Court.

Terri Peretti | author of "Partisan Supremacy: How the GOP Enlisted Courts to Rig America's Ele

A compelling account of how the Supreme Court lost its connection to the people and risked its democratic legitimacy. McMahon makes a major contribution with innovative measures, rich historical detail, and an original call for reform ‘from the grassroots.’

Library Journal

★ 03/01/2024

McMahon (political science, Trinity Coll.; Nixon's Court) presents a well-researched, thoroughly annotated examination of the change in the U.S. Supreme Court's composition over time. Broken into historical timelines with context, the striking contrast between Antonin Scalia's career (once held as the needle of conservatism) and today's bench (including three Trump nominees) becomes obvious. The research is supported by a profusion of charts that demonstrate how nomination criteria and political platform loyalty have changed over time, moving justices farther away from the beliefs of their constituents and communities. The book makes it easy to understand the mood of the country in any given era, as it is clarified by the inclusion of relevant cases, headlines, and election results. The visuals when describing the ramifications of a numerical minority are especially effective at demonstrating how a small group of people can wield vast political influence. VERDICT McMahon's exemplary ability to explain the changes in party politics, ideologies, and political practices helps readers to visualize the monstrous philosophical gap between the judges and their electorate. This confirms his thesis that judicial independence is creating judicial isolation, to the detriment of the country. The book will appeal to voracious consumers of political thought and current events.—Tina Panik

Kirkus Reviews

2024-02-03
Analysis of a U.S. Supreme Court far removed from other instruments and tenets of democratic governance.

Political scientist McMahon opens with the most consequential single Supreme Court decision in our time: Dobbs, which overturned Roe v. Wade, undoing “a constitutional right that had been in the law books for nearly fifty years.” The decision scarcely elicited comment from the ruling majority and barely any dissent. The decision, notes the author, was another sign of a growing “democracy gap” between the Court and other democratic institutions that lend it legitimacy. The will of the people was once an intangible institution that held some weight in juridical decision-making; now the Court comprises a majority of “numerical minority justices,” appointed by presidents and confirmed by legislators who represent a minority of the American population. Moreover, writes McMahon, the Court, the product of heavy vetting by the archconservative Federalist Society, is representative of “a small sliver—more like a tiny speck—of [an] America that is closed off to the vast majority.” Given all this, it is small wonder that the Court’s decisions are so increasingly narrow in whom they reward and so onerous to so many ordinary people. Arguing from the general premise that the Court has little or no democratic legitimacy, McMahon suggests amendments to the Constitution that would reduce lifetime appointments to term appointments, and he floats the idea that court packing might have its uses, such as affording “presidents additional opportunities to choose from outside the judicial monastery.” Both measures, McMahon urges, would help depoliticize a Court that promises to be in the sway of the hard right for a generation to come.

A cleareyed, depressingly convincing view of a Supreme Court that has abandoned the Republic for other masters.

Product Details

BN ID:	2940190840155
Publisher:	University of Chicago Press
Publication date:	08/20/2024
Edition description:	Unabridged

Videos