Who Actually Runs the Supreme Court?

This week, two Supreme Court justices stood up and said the same thing: the court has no ties to politics. Justice Amy Coney Barrett spoke at a public event Monday, while Chief Justice John Roberts did the same Wednesday. Both claimed the court stays neutral and makes decisions based purely on law. But their words ring hollow when you look at recent history. In 2016, Donald Trump campaigned hard on filling a Supreme Court seat. He got help from conservative groups like the Federalist Society and promised to pick judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. White evangelicals, who cared deeply about abortion rights, voted for him in huge numbers. Without that court vacancy, Trump might not have won. The court’s political side doesn’t stop there. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination for nearly a year, saying the public should have a say. Yet just weeks before the 2020 election, he rushed through Barrett’s confirmation without hesitation. The message was clear: rules change when it suits one side.The justices argue that most court decisions are unanimous. That’s true, but it’s also meaningless. Congress passes many uncontroversial bills the same way—no one thinks that means Congress isn’t political. What matters is how the court handles the big, divisive issues like abortion, guns, or affirmative action. On those, the votes split perfectly along party lines: six conservative justices on one side, three liberal ones on the other. Denying the court’s politics isn’t just dishonest—it’s a calculated move. If people believe the court is above politics, they won’t challenge its power. Expanding the court becomes "court-packing. " Term limits get called unconstitutional. Even modest reforms get dismissed as extreme. But history shows the court has always been political. Congress has changed its size many times to favor one party over another. So what happens when the public stops pretending? The conversation shifts. Expanding the court, setting term limits, or enforcing ethical rules becomes possible. These ideas aren’t radical—they’re sensible ways to make the court fairer. The real question is why anyone would accept the status quo just because a few judges say so.