CNN’s Laura Coates recently took a jab at Supreme Court Justices with her sarcastic comment, saying if you hold your breath and bite your tongue long enough, you get called a Justice. Meanwhile, Nayyera Haq, former Obama administration Senior Director, and GOP Representative, Joe Walsh, seemed to support the idea of overhauling the Supreme Court.
First Lady Jill Biden’s appearance on The View caught a lot of eyes, as she emphatically expressed her criticism of adding more Republican justices to the Supreme Court. Biden warned about losing multiple rights, including women’s rights and gay rights, if Trump were to be reelected. Coates jumped in, asking whether this anti-Supreme Court message should be amplified.
Joe Walsh agreed with Biden, saying that using the Supreme Court for political advantage was fine. He claimed himself a “political conservative” and yet, seemed hesitant, not wanting people to question the court’s legitimacy. But, his statement of “call them out politically all day long” seems contradictory. Walsh appeared unsure, flip-flopping between supporting Biden’s message and voicing his worries about the perspective people might have of the Supreme Court.
Nayyera Haq took it a step further, claiming that the court was questioning its own legitimacy by “acting and behaving in unethical ways.” According to her, the court’s rulings are tied directly to its validity, despite the court’s justices and decisions predating most modern controversies. Heavy words, coming from someone whose issue with conservative justices appears to be more about their age, rather than their rulings, given her comment about the “lifetime appointments” of justices.
This debate around Supreme Court justices and their decisions shows a worrying pattern. Courts are tools for justice, not political machinery. When figures with significant influence in society stoop to undermining these institutions for their political gains, it threatens the principles our Constitution is founded upon. The decision-making in the highest court of the land should not be determined by political agendas, but by diligent scrutiny of laws and their application.
In Conclusion, the discourse surrounding the Supreme Court needs a shift from political manipulation to legal consideration. Trust in this long-established institution must be preserved, rather than subjected to baseless skepticism stirred by politically motivated narratives. It’s high time we stopped questioning the legitimacy of justices based on their political affiliations and started focusing on the objective interpretation and application of the law.
