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 }}
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 ›
Biden’s promise to name a Black woman to SCOTUS isn’t unprecedented
US President Joe Biden has gotten pushback from some Republicans for honoring his campaign pledge to nominate a Black woman to replace outgoing Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court.
But for Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page, how is that different from when Ronald Reagan promised to pick the court's first woman in Sandra Day O'Connor?
"Biden isn't saying that just being black is enough, or just being a woman is enough. I think they've got to be qualified first," he tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Page believes the three names that have come forth on the president's shortlist are all qualified. It's too bad, he says, that they can be stigmatized by those who think they will get the job because of their race.
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Black voter suppression in 2022
- The history of Black voting rights in America - GZERO Media ›
- Why do Black people feel "erased" from American history? - GZERO ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: SCOTUS vacancies in presidential election years ... ›
- Biden's SCOTUS pick to replace Breyer must appeal to Senate ... ›
- SCOTUS confirmation hearings no longer serve a purpose - GZERO Media ›