Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that “caution” is a quintessential component of the federal judiciary, warning that overriding previous precedents risks undermining faith in the legal system.
Sotomayor, one of three current justices appointed by a Democratic president to the high court, referenced the June 24 decision that allowed states to restrict or limit abortion procedures severely without specifically naming the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling during a conversation sponsored by the nonprofit Connecticut Forum.
“Justices have to proceed with a great deal of caution because people rely on the stability of the law in believing and having faith that the judicial system is not prone to politics,” said Sotomayor, who dissented against the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade this summer.
Other members of the high court’s liberal bloc including Justice Elena Kagan have made subtle suggestions that the Supreme Court has brought its legitimacy into question by way of the recent landmark opinions determined by the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority on the bench.
During an event in September at Temple Emanu-El Streicker Center in New York, Kagan said that “judges create legitimacy problems for themselves when they don’t act like courts” and “when they instead stray into places that look like politics.”
University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck said the “worst part” about the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which is also poised to unwind years of affirmative action precedent and recently bolstered Second Amendment rights, is that they reject any notion their decisions coincide with desired political agendas.
“The public perception that all of these 6-3 and 5-4 rulings just happen to break down the same ways that tend to favor Republicans or Democrats — even if there are principles behind those decisions, it doesn’t look good,” Vladeck said Wednesday during a virtual panel hosted by the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library.
Just 47% of U.S. adults say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch, which is down 20 percentage points from two years ago, according to a September Gallup poll.
In response to dwindling public confidence in the judicial system, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced a bill in July seeking to cap future Supreme Court justices with 18-year term limits while allotting presidents to select two justices per a presidential term. So far, no action has been taken on the legislation after its introduction this summer.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Retired Justice Stephen Breyer, who also dissented against the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on June 24, spoke at a Harvard Institute of Politics event last month and suggested he would be open to seeing term limits for high court justices. They currently remain on the court indefinitely after a Senate confirmation vote.
“It would have to be a very long term,” Breyer said, speculating about a 20-year limit. “You don’t want someone in that job to be thinking about, ‘What is my next job?’ But if you had a long, definite term, like most countries have some kind of definite term, it would be fine.”
