Troubling Responses Against Recent SCOTUS Decisions In California

The recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action, refusing service based on beliefs, and student loan forgiveness brought out a myriad of charged responses during the last few days, echoing statements made last year at wanting to make significant changes to the courts.

Last year, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court ruling, which essentially reversed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal in the country and made it state-based, brought out a myriad of fiery responses.

Governor Gavin Newsom stepped up abortion sanctuary state policies, and along with Oregon and Washington, created a West Coast “offense” of protecting abortion. Other Californian lawmakers also proposed everything from adding Supreme Court justices to instilling term-limits. However, the hype died down several months later and, to President Joe Biden’s credit, he refused to pack the Supreme Court despite his heavy opposition to the decision.

This week, similar arguments and responses came up yet again following decisions on Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, Biden v. Nebraska, and 303 Creatve LLC v. Elenis. Some were on-brand for the lawmakers, such as Newsom’s response to the affirmative action ruling, in which he said that some justices as being “right-wing extremists:”

“The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has yet again upended longstanding precedent, changing the law just because they now have the votes to do so, without any care for the costs to society and students around the country,” said Newsom in a statement on Thursday. “Right-wing activists — including those donning robes — are trying to take us back to the era of book bans and segregated campuses. As Justices Sotomayor and Jackson put it powerfully, no one benefits from ignorance: diverse schools are an essential component of the fabric of our democratic society. While the path to equal opportunity has now been narrowed for millions of students, no court case will ever shatter the California Dream. Our campus doors remain open for all who want to work hard — and our commitment to diversity, equity, and equal opportunity has never been stronger.”

Others called for more extreme measures once again, such as Senate candidate Lexi Reese saying that Supreme Court term limits should be put into place:

“In the last two days, the Supreme Court has made decisions that deeply impact the lives of everyday Americans. They legalized discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and crushed the hopes of millions burdened by student debt,” said Reese. “They also struck down Affirmative Action, setting back our pursuit of racial equality. And let’s not forget their decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, stripping away vital protections for our reproductive rights.

“These actions by the Court threaten our fundamental rights and endanger the progress we have fought so hard to achieve. It’s clear that a lifetime appointment is too long for justices to hold such immense power over our nation.

“That’s why I’m calling for term limits on Supreme Court Justices. It’s time to ensure that fresh perspectives and diverse voices have a chance to shape the Court’s decisions. By introducing term limits, we can prevent the entrenchment of power and foster a more balanced and responsive judiciary that truly represents the people it serves.”

Responses to the major 2023 Supreme Court cases

The thing is, these types of reactions have been happening for decades. When President Franklin Roosevelt failed to get past many New Deal reforms past the court in the 1930s, he led a serious attempt to put in six more justices until public opinion went against him.

Republicans have also been guilty of this too, in the 1970’s and 1980’s when term limits were proposed by prominent Republicans. But political experts noted on Friday that these responses have been unique in that instead of moving on for solutions, many have continued to make the old arguments.

“What makes the most recent round of responses so troubling is that they didn’t learn anything from the near past,” explained David Duncan, a political advisor who focuses on judicial issues, to the Globe on Friday. “Most lawmakers may not like a decision and condemn it, but realize that the political tide changes and times change, and that the ball is right now is in the hands of the conservatives. Eventually liberals will get the court back, and it goes back and forth. Same with Congress and the presidency. Public opinion is against court packing and Supreme Court term limits have also been opposed. And yet they are still calling for it afterwards.”

“What often happened in prior years is that a plan went into motion to reverse that policy. Like Roe v. Wade. As soon as it was passed in 1973, people worked the next 49 years to reverse it. They didn’t call for court packing or anything else like that. They worked hard to recommend judges, back cases that chipped away at it, and, eventually, got it reversed. Everyone wants a quick solution to it, but as they see that it isn’t possible, they work on the issue itself.”

“From the responses, they oddly didn’t learn from last year. We should give them some time, but if they are still trying to put in SCOTUS term limits six months from now, then we’ll know that they didn’t learn anything. Quick solutions don’t work in the legal system, and if you want change, it takes time and effort. Just because you don’t like the decision doesn’t mean you should find the easy solution. As Dobbs showed us, the long road does take more time but when it does come through it leaves no question.”

Other responses by Californian lawmakers on the latest Supreme Court decision are expected to come in during the weekend.