Supreme Court could shift more to conservative side
Justices may want to tackle issues like abortion and guns
If Congress confirms President Donald Trump’s nominee to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court would become more conservative, and also perhaps more ready to tackle certain hot-button issues like abortion and guns. Chief Justice John Roberts would also likely become less able to steer the outcome in divisive cases.
Ginsburg was the leader of the liberal wing of the court, which had been split 5-4 between conservatives and liberals. Roberts had, on occasion, sided with the liberals
But if Trump fills Ginsburg’s seat, there will be six conservative justices, three appointed by him.
Here are several big issues that are poised to come before the justices where a more solidly conservative majority could make a difference:
Health care: A week after the presidential election, the court will hear arguments in a bid by the Trump administration and Republican-led states to overturn the Obama-era health care law. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, coverage for more than 20 million people is at stake, along with the law’s ban on insurance discrimination against Americans with preexisting medical conditions.
Amoreconservative court might be seen as more sympathetic to striking down the Affordable Care Act, but the court might still choose not to. The justices have less drastic options. They could invalidate “Obamacare’s” now toothless requirement that most Americans carry health insurance, and leave in place core provisions such as subsidized health insurance, Medicaid expansion and protection for people with medical problems.
Elections: Trump has said he wants Ginsburg’s replacement confirmed to the Supreme Court ahead of Election Day so that a full court can weigh in on any campaign-related litigation.
Speaking at the White House last week, Trumppredicted the election “will end up in the Supreme Court, adding, “I think it’s important we have nine justices.” The 2016 election was conducted with only eight justices on the bench, however, after Republicans refused to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
It’s possible that an election-deciding case lands in the justices’ laps, as one did in the 2000 election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. Liberals worry that a court with three Trump appointees would favor him in a dispute with Joe Biden.
But even if an electiondeciding question doesn’t arrive at the justices’ doorstep, they have already weighed in on election changes states have made in response to the coronavirus pandemic. And more .pre-election challenges are likely coming. So far this year the court has stopped other courts from altering election rules close to the election.
Abortion: Abortion rights advocates would seem to face insurmountable odds winning at the Supreme Court without Ginsburg.
Earlier this year, a divided
Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights. It was the first big abortion case of Trump’s presidency.
The 5-4 outcome turned on the vote of Roberts. The court addressed a law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The justices ruled that the law violates the rights established by Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a nationwide right to abortion.
But Roberts’ vote had to do with following court precedent rather than sup
port for abortion rights. If a Trump nominee replaces Ginsburg, Roberts’ vote on the issue would likely become less decisive. And the addition of another conservative vote would likely spur states to test the boundaries of regulation.
Already, cases are headed to the court that would provide an opportunity to overturn or weaken Roe. v Wade.
Guns: The Supreme Court has for years been reluctant to take on new guns cases, but that could change under a more conservative court.
Last year, with two Trump justices aboard, the Supreme Court took on its first major
gun rights case in a decade. But the case ended with the justices sidestepping any major decision.
Gun rights advocates had hoped the court might use the case from New York City to expand on landmark decisions that established a right under the Second Amendment to keep a gun at home for self-defense. Instead, the justices threw out the case, citing changes in city restrictions and state law.
Three members of the courtdissented,however,expressing concern that lower federal courts are not properly applying the court’s two big gun rights decisions from 2008 and 2010.