Prospect Magazine


/ / Leave a comment

Has the US Supreme Court become too political?

In June, the Supreme Court upheld President Obama’s healthcare reforms in a ruling that surprised conservatives and liberals

In June, in the days before the United States Supreme Court was to issue its landmark ruling on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform, the nation went insane with half-baked speculation. Everyone was certain that the sharply polarised court, under the stewardship of Chief Justice John Roberts, would deliver a sharply polarised verdict. There was much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth, as the prospect of a politically motivated decision from the court highlighted the evaporating line between law and ideology.

In theory, the job of the Supreme Court, whose nine lifetime-appointee justices are supposed to be impartial, is to ensure that the President and Congress act within the limits outlined in the US Constitution. On right and left Americans now worried publicly about the wisdom of turning over vital matters

You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please either subscribe or Login to access.

Leave a comment


Dahlia Lithwick
Dahlia Lithwick is a Canadian writer and editor based in Washington, DC. She is a contributing editor at Newsweek and a senior editor at Slate 

Share this

Most Read

Prospect Buzz

  • Prospect's masterful crossword setter Didymus gets a shout-out in the Guardian
  • The Telegraph reports on Nigel Farage's article on Lords reform
  • Prospect writer Mark Kitto is profiled in the New York Times

Prospect Reads

  • Do China’s youth care about politics? asks Alec Ash
  • Joanna Biggs on Facebook and feminism
  • Boris Berezosky was a brilliant man, says Keith Gessen—but he nearly destroyed Russia