The Supreme Court has sparked controversy by asserting its exclusive authority over interpreting the Constitution, a stance critics argue undermines the democratic process. A recent article published by Slate titled "The Supreme Court Doesn’t Own the Constitution" challenges the court's claim of being the sole guardian and interpreter of the nation's foundational document. The piece argues that while the Supreme Court maintains its position as the final arbiter of constitutional law, this view is increasingly at odds with the historical understanding that the Constitution was ordained and established by "the People." The article highlights the current composition of the Supreme Court, dominated by six Republican-appointed justices, and notes that their interpretations of key constitutional issues, such as abortion rights, gun ownership, and executive immunity, have diverged significantly. For instance, the court has ruled against protections for reproductive autonomy, affirmed the right to bear arms in ways that align with conservative interpretations, and suggested that former President Donald Trump might face limited consequences for alleged criminal conduct during his presidency. Despite these differences, the justices agree on one point: the court's role as the ultimate authority on constitutional matters. This belief is rooted in the 1958 Cooper v. Aaron decision, where the court emphasized its "supreme" position in interpreting the Constitution as a "permanent and indispensable feature" of American governance. The court continues to promote itself as the "final arbiter of the law," reinforcing its image as the Constitution's "guardian and interpreter." However, legal scholars such as Professor Larry Kramer argue that this perspective is both self-serving and an overreach. Kramer's book, The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review, contends that the Framers of the Constitution were not judicial supremacists. Instead, they recognized the importance of allowing ordinary citizens to shape the meaning of the Constitution through political processes. Kramer describes this approach as a "tradition we seem to have lost or surrendered today," particularly in light of the rise of a conservative majority on the court. This shift has led to concerns that the court is increasingly prioritizing ideological agendas over the will of the public. The article also addresses the practical implications of judicial supremacy. While the court's influence is undeniable, the mechanisms by which ordinary citizens can participate in shaping constitutional interpretation remain obscure. Unlike the court, which operates through formal legal channels, the public's ability to engage with constitutional matters is often constrained by financial and educational barriers. Nevertheless, the article emphasizes that avenues for civic involvement do exist, ranging from grassroots advocacy to direct engagement with elected officials. One of the key arguments made in the article is the distinction between what the Constitution explicitly states and how judges interpret it. For example, the Constitution includes a clause prohibiting deprivations of liberty without due process, but it does not explicitly recognize a right to reproductive autonomy. Similarly, while the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, its interpretation has been shaped by judicial opinions rather than the text itself. These examples illustrate how the meanings of constitutional provisions are often influenced by judicial reasoning rather than the original intent of the framers. Critics argue that this dynamic creates a system where the Constitution's meaning is largely determined by a small group of unelected officials, rather than the broader populace. The article calls for a renewed commitment to "popular constitutionalism," emphasizing that the Constitution belongs to all Americans and should reflect the values and aspirations of the people it governs. This vision stands in contrast to the current trajectory of the Supreme Court, which many believe is moving away from democratic principles toward a more entrenched form of judicial dominance.
4 reports
SlateIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 6014 days agoThe article discusses the historical shift in constitutional interpretation from the American people to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution was never meant to be solely interpreted by nine unelected justices. It highlights concerns about judicial supremacy and calls for restoring public authority over constitutional interpretation. The piece references a podcast series exploring this issue, featuring legal scholar Larry Kramer, and promotes subscription to Slate Plus for exclusive content. A separate bonus episode addresses accountability issues involving the acting Attorney General and Supreme Court justices.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the concentration of constitutional interpretation power in the Supreme Court as a problematic development, implying criticism of judicial overreach and advocating for democratic control. The tone suggests concern over the erosion of popular sovereignty in constitutional matters,傾
Why factuality (85): The article accurately represents the primary source document's content about Larry Kramer's book and its scholarly reception. It correctly identifies the central thesis of the book and quotes relevant endorsements from various sources. However, it introduces some framing that isn't explicitly state
Why objectivity (60): While the article presents a clear perspective favoring popular constitutionalism, it attempts to provide context by mentioning Larry Kramer's scholarship. The tone is critical of the current Supreme Court but avoids extreme language compared to other articles. It still lacks explicit counterpoints
SlateIndependentProgressiveFactual 80Objective 5512 days ago Taking Back Your Democracy for DummiesThe article critiques the current U.S. Supreme Court's perceived monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, arguing that this 'judicial supremacy' undermines democratic principles. It references historical cases like Cooper v. Aaron (1958), where the Court affirmed its authority, but contrasts this with the Framers' original intent to allow broader public participation in shaping constitutional interpretation. Law professor Larry Kramer's work, 'The People Themselves,' is cited to emphasize the importance of popular constitutionalism and the erosion of this tradition under a conservative majority. The piece advocates for grassroots efforts to reclaim constitutional authority from the Court, suggesting that ordinary citizens can engage in constitutional discourse without legal training.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the current Supreme Court as an undemocratic institution that prioritizes judicial authority over popular sovereignty. It criticizes the Court's conservative majority for advancing a 'reactionary policy agenda' and emphasizes the need for 'popular constitutionalism.' The tone and措
Why factuality (80): The article accurately references Larry Kramer's book and its arguments about popular constitutionalism. It correctly identifies the core thesis of the book and acknowledges the Supreme Court's role in constitutional interpretation. However, it cuts off mid-sentence, preventing a complete discussion
Why objectivity (55): The article presents a critical view of the Supreme Court's role in constitutional interpretation but avoids extreme language. It acknowledges the existence of differing viewpoints among justices while maintaining a clear preference for popular constitutionalism. The tone is analytical but lacks exp
SlateIndependentProgressiveFactual 75Objective 4014 days ago By the PeopleThe article critiques the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, describing it as an 'unelected, life-tenured juristocracy' that has increasingly undermined democratic principles by limiting legislative power, reducing judicial oversight of executive actions, and restricting voting rights. The author argues that the Court's decisions have moved the U.S. further away from representative constitutional democracy. The piece reflects on the contrast between Americans' frustration with the Court's rulings and their celebration of independence on July Fourth. The article aims to address the question of what citizens can do to reclaim the Constitution and the law from the Court, emphasizing that individuals are not passive recipients of constitutional meaning but active participants in democracy.
Bias read (Progressive): The article strongly criticizes the Supreme Court's role in American governance, portraying it as undemocratic and harmful to civil liberties. It uses emotionally charged language such as 'abusive boyfriend,' 'juristocracy,' and 'xenophobes,' and frames the Court as an obstacle to democratic values.
Why factuality (75): The article accurately references the primary source document's content about Larry Kramer's book and its reception, but it adds speculative commentary about the Supreme Court being an 'abusive boyfriend' and uses hyperbolic language like 'monarchical Supreme Court' that isn't present in the source
Why objectivity (40): The article exhibits strong bias against the Supreme Court using emotionally charged metaphors ('abusive boyfriend') and frames the Court as an antagonist. It presents a clear ideological stance favoring popular constitutionalism without presenting counterarguments or balanced perspectives.
RealClearPoliticsIndependentCenterFactual 40Objective 658 days agoThe headline suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a previously overlooked part of the Constitution, potentially indicating a significant legal development. However, without additional information from the article, it is unclear which specific constitutional provision or case is being referenced. The mention of the Supreme Court implies a focus on judicial interpretation and constitutional law, which are typically politically charged topics due to their impact on governance and individual rights.
Bias read (Center): The headline appears neutral, focusing on the Supreme Court's action rather than taking a clear ideological stance. Since there is no additional content to suggest a particular political leaning, the framing remains balanced. The subject matter is highly contested, but the headline does not exhibit傾
Why factuality (40): The article provides minimal factual information about the primary source document or Larry Kramer's book. It mentions the Supreme Court taking up a neglected part of the Constitution but doesn't specify which part or connect it to Kramer's work. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to assess
Why objectivity (65): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone by focusing on the general topic of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. However, it fails to provide sufficient context or analysis, making it difficult to determine its overall stance on the issue. The vagueness of the content prevents a
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
United States
