We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Why Clarence Thomas has eroded trust in the US Supreme Court
Few Supreme Court Justices have tested the Court's ethical limits like Justice Clarence Thomas, says this week's GZERO World guest, Yale Law School legal expert Emily Bazelon. And that's because, for centuries, Justices have been reluctant to test the boundaries of an ethical system that has few limits. "Federal judges and lower courts are subject to ethical codes," Bazelon explains, "but not the Supreme Court justices themselves."
As a result, the Court has experienced some of its lowest public approval ratings in history, this past year. Some of that discontent, of course, can be traced to the Court's rightward swing under its conservative supermajority. But for a branch of the government that relies heavily on public trust to ensure that its rulings are respected and carried out, the decline in popular support is cause for concern.
"People do not have faith that this is a non-political institution, and that's what courts are supposed to be, at least in theory. They're supposed to be doing something called law, that's separate from politics."
Tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
For more on the Supreme Court and what to expect from anticipated rulings this year, watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: "Who polices the Supreme Court?"
One year since Roe v. Wade reversal, biggest surprises in state law
Surprises and non-surprises surrounded the Supreme Court's landmark Dobbs ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade last year. It started with the infamous leak to POLITICO about the ruling to come, and then the decision itself came down nearly a year ago today. But according to GZERO World guest Yale Law legal expert Emily Bazelon, one of the biggest surprises happened after the ruling.
"What has been surprising has been the ballot initiatives that have uniformly so far protected abortion rights in the six states where they have been up for a vote, including in Kansas." The fact that, at least at the state level, abortion has fared much better than expected this past year, Bazelon says, has to do with the voters themselves.
"When abortion is put to voters directly, one issue they can concentrate on, they are more interested in protecting abortion rights than I think a lot of people on the right and the left expected."
Tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
For more on the Supreme Court and what to expect from anticipated rulings this year, watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: "Who polices the Supreme Court?"
- 3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023 ›
- The Graphic Truth: Where can American women now get abortions? ›
- Why do Americans get so worked up about abortion? ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Roe v. Wade overturned: Abortion restricted in half of US states ›
Who polices the Supreme Court?
Who watches the watchmen? And who oversees the US Supreme Court? As SCOTUS, the highest court in the US, gears up to issue some blockbuster rulings this summer, ethical concerns swirl around its members, and its public support is at an all-time low.
It’s been one year since SCOTUS struck down Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after 50 years of precedent. In the months following the decision, the conservative supermajority quickly moved US law away from the political center. Multiple controversies erupted surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas, and public opinion balked at a blanket refusal to address questions about the justices’ ethical standard.
Has the Supreme Court become overly politicized? Can public faith be restored in a deeply partisan America? And what major rulings are still to come this session? Ian Bremmer talks with Yale Law School legal expert, New York Times Magazine columnist and co-host of the Slate’s Political Gabfest podcast, Emily Bazelon.
Tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
- 3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023 ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- What We’re Watching: SCOTUS mulling student debt relief, Blinken visiting Central Asia, Biden's partial TikTok ban, Petro’s post-honeymoon phase ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence - GZERO Media ›
Podcast: (Un)packing the Supreme Court with Yale Law's Emily Bazelon
Listen: The Supreme Court, one of the three branches of government that makes up this country's democratic system of checks and balances, doesn't have a military. As a result, when its justices make a ruling, they are counting on a strong sense of public trust to ensure their decisions are carried out. Not all countries on this planet can count on that public trust, and with popular support for the Court plummeting to record lows, some experts fear that the United States may soon be unable to as well.
So as SCOTUS gears up for what is sure to be a blockbuster June of Court rulings, a flurry of ethical questions surrounding the bench--as well as its hard-right turn under a conservative supermajority--have made the prospect of a potential Constitutional crisis more plausible than ever before. And then comes the 2024 election. On the podcast this week, Yale Law legal expert and co-host of Slate's Political Gabfest joins Ian Bremmer to discuss the Court's many headwinds ahead, as well as the specific cases slated to be decided in the coming weeks.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.- 3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023 ›
- What We’re Watching: SCOTUS mulling student debt relief, Blinken visiting Central Asia, Biden's partial TikTok ban, Petro’s post-honeymoon phase ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- Abortion pills likely headed to Supreme Court, says NYT Mag columnist Emily Bazelon ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence - GZERO Media ›
3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023
As the 2023-2023 Supreme Court session comes to a close, a flurry of major decisions are expected by the end of the month on the EPA, affirmative action, and student loan forgiveness. Emily Bazelon, Yale Law School Senior Research Fellow and host of Slate’s Political Gabfest podcast, stopped by GZERO World with Ian Bremmer to discuss some of the big cases argued before the court this term.
SCOTUS already issued a ruling in Sackett v. EPA, limiting the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect US wetlands and waterways. It’s the second ruling in a year where the justices significantly rolled back the federal government’s authority to regulate the environment.
“Millions of acres that have been regulated up till now won't be anymore,” Bazelon says, “And when you think about the record of the Clean Water Act for preserving and cleaning Americans’ waterways and rivers, now the EPA has a lot less reach to do that.
There are also two important cases in higher education––affirmative action and President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. Bazelon thinks that SCOTUS is ready to end race-based affirmative action in the US based on justices’ questioning in oral arguments. How the court will rule in the student loans case, however, is trickier to predict because loan forgiveness is somewhat tied to national emergency declaration for COVID, which ended in May.
For more on the Supreme Court and what to expect from anticipated rulings this year, tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. Check local listings.
- What We’re Watching: SCOTUS mulling student debt relief, Blinken visiting Central Asia, Biden's partial TikTok ban, Petro’s post-honeymoon phase ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Abortion pills likely headed to Supreme Court, says NYT Mag columnist Emily Bazelon ›
- Podcast: (Un)packing the Supreme Court with Yale Law's Emily Bazelon - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence - GZERO Media ›
The political machine that took down Roe v. Wade
50 years ago, when the Supreme Court granted the constitutional right to abortion, the country was far less divided than is it today. Now with that Roe v. Wade decision overturned, roughly half the states have "trigger laws" on the books restricting abortion, New York Times columnist Emily Bazelon tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
From a constitutional perspective, Bazelon says that abortion decisions today depend "on what you think of the idea that abortion is fundamental to women's liberty and equality" — a hard sell for what she calls a "maximalist" conservative majority on the court.
Bazelon adds that access to abortion pills is going to turn into a big legal battle. The Justice Department is working to ensure states can't ban abortion pills, which are federally approved, but Congress (as a whole) will be a tough sell.
But much of the rest of the world has been moving in the opposite direction. Largely Catholic countries in Latin America and Europe have legalized abortion, while African nations have rolled back or are rethinking colonial-era abortion bans. Regardless, the SCOTUS ruling will make waves around the world.
Interpreting SCOTUS: guns, abortion, history, tradition & constitutional law
The day before the US Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion, it affirmed the right to carry guns.
Why?
New York Times columnist Emily Bazelon explains that the justices think that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment is individual and rooted in the nation's history and tradition, while abortion is neither.
The thing is, she tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, "the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that they claim is rooted in the nation's history and tradition is actually correct."
At the end of the day, Bazelon says that abortion decisions today depend "on what you think of the idea that abortion is fundamental to women's liberty and equality" — a hard sell for what she calls a "maximalist" conservative majority on the court.
The abortion fight to come: why US Congressional control matters
New York Times columnist Emily Bazelon says the Justice Department is working to ensure states can't ban abortion pills, which are federally approved.
But then Congress (as a whole) will be a tough sell, she tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
The House could enshrine Roe v. Wade into law, but it'll surely die in the Senate, where Democrats remain "paralyzed" over getting rid of the filibuster. And then, of course, the next Congress could repeal the whole thing.
Still, even if Republicans win control of both houses in November, she doubts the GOP majority will move to outlaw abortion at the federal level.
Watch the GZERO World episode: US Supreme Court fights: why ending Roe is only the beginning