Erwin Chemerinsky: The Changing Role of the US Supreme Court

With the recent appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, the balance on the U.S. Supreme Court has shifted fundamentally toward the conservatives, and a series of precedent-breaking decisions issued during the 2022 session confirms it. The implications of the Dodd decision alone are far reaching for individual rights, not to mention those cases that focus on the government’s ability to regulate policy in areas like immigration, the environment, the separation of church and state, and gun safety. In many respects, the court majority's ideological shift to an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation has upset the balance of power and redrawn the traditional lines separating the three branches of government in our democracy.
As the court opens its fall session, Dean Chemerinsky will discuss the new justices and these recent decisions as well as upcoming cases before the court which address critical issues like affirmative action and the independence of state legislatures. He will shed light on how the changing role of the Supreme Court might affect the future of our democracy.
He will also discuss Chemerinsky’s new book, Worse than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism.
This program is part of an ongoing series on the Future of Democracy.
October 13, 2022
Speakers
Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean, University of California Berkeley School of Law
Roy Eisenhardt
Lecturer, University of California Berkeley School of Law-Moderator
👉Join our Email List! www.commonwealthclub.org/email
🎉 BECOME a MEMBER: www.commonwealthclub.org/memb...
The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum 📣, bringing together its 20,000 members for more than 500 annual events on topics ranging across politics, culture, society and the economy.
Founded in 1903 in San Francisco California 🌉, The Commonwealth Club has played host to a diverse and distinctive array of speakers, from Teddy Roosevelt in 1911 to Anthony Fauci in 2020.
In addition to the videos🎥 shared here, the Club reaches millions of listeners through its podcast🎙 and weekly national radio program📻.

[@aristeon5908]

The media should be talking about these things instead of focusing on clickbaity drama and outrage or moral equivalence.

[@talon1623]

Doesn't sell. The MSM is a business. They'll always go for the lowest common denominator.

[@crl7413]

Since the fedsoc court decrees that I and my family are forced to work in a workplace, shop in a store, eat in a restaurant, walk down a street, or drive down a freeway with hundreds, maybe thousands of unstable people carrying AK-47 weapons, so do they. I have told my representative and my senators that guns must be allowed in their workplace, the Supreme Court. I will not pay for their private security. Their edicts have consequences.

[@norman_5623]

That's prohibited by the Huey Newton rule, which says that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them.

[@norman_5623]

So could New York City pass a law specifying the arms that were available in 1789, and saying that only those arms could be carried or possessed in New York City without an additional permit?

[@CTJENN]

Very interesting....Thank you for educating me.

[@MichaelBrodie68]

As an Australian lawyer, I have engaged much more in rulings by the US Supreme Court. Remarkably political body. Although our constitution is substantially different, I would have thought that the Texas abortion law case abrogates a legislative function which ought be unconstitutional in any Western democracy. Too few rights enforced too radically??

[@birhan2006]

I think there should be a constitutional amendment to the constitution for the appointment of judges. After nomination by a President, 65 senators should confirm the impartiality of the nominee. If the senators can't reach an agreement, both the house and the senate vote for confirmation.

[@patriciajump9511]

Does history actually say that the constitution was "purposely" written broadly ... or was it "fortunately" written broadly? (Or both?) Even if history does not actually say that the writers intended the document to stand the test of time, if it was deliberately written broadly, that should cover the test of time. Did they want it to remain vague only so there would always be at least "some"sort of document - even one that gave little specific guidance - that could not be held invalid, so the republic would have a chance of surviving?

[@jaywerner2246]

While this discussion is keyed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it fits well with our state and Congressional issues as well. The way for getting change is by complaining about the inequality vocally and using that voice to speak to your friends and political leaders, contact your newspaper, radio and TV personalities. and speak online to whoever will listen.

[@semigeniusreally8988]

The Republican Party has known for about 4 decades that the inexorable and inevitable march of demographics in America would, before 2040, render the Republlican Party a virtually irrelevant anomaly in American politics, certainly on a national level. And so the GOP had an existential decision to make: Continue to honor the underlying principles of democracy (ie. one person, one vote) or set into motion an overarching plot to subvert democracy in order to preserve - and increase - its national power through authoritarian politics It hsaw control of the system of justice as well as state legislatures as the most direct means of acheiving the latter. Trump's presidency was nothing more than a welcome distraction from the plot and the stacking of conservative ideologs on SCOTUS, the canary in the coalmine being the Citizens United case and then the neutering of the Voting Rights Act. All politcal change and civil rights begin and end with the approbation of the Supreme Court and now the former has been accelerated while the latter has been rolled back. And now we see almost every GOP-controlled state legislature acting to eliminate existing rights - abortion, minority access to the polls, free speech, freedom of assembly, separation of church and state, etc., - and the extensive hatred for Donald Trump as potentially ascending to the presidency again serves the GOP as the continuing distraction while the mechanisms of creating an authoritarian political system is perfected and which which is almost certain to be fully realized within the next decade.

[@CKWong-jk5st]

If the "Originalists" are true to their purported philosophy, following the logic of Originalism, the "arms" that one could "bear" should be that arms that were available in 1789.

[@NOLAART]

So what this guy is saying is throw out 200 years of a contract with the people. He just assumes changes being made will be for the good, dangerous thinking.

[@norman_5623]

No, he's saying that the conservatives threw out a 200-year-old contract in the 1970s, primarily to prevent black people from voting. The Federalist Society correctly saw that once they got a majority on the Supreme Court, they would have a dictatorship, and could ignore the Constitution. The Republican Party has been auctioning off Supreme Court seats to powerful interest groups, like anti-abortion "Christians", in return for their support at the polls.

[@kevinpoole4323]

Point of Clarification on Sunday Laws First Amendment Constitutional Law.and How it Reflects Choice and Liberty of Conscience.

[@sharondavid-melly1498]

You mean social consciousness? Please clarify.🤔

[@tunatony]

Vote Republican. Your wallet will thank you...and it won't be depleted by the government or taken by rioting thugs🗳️✅🗽

[@georl1]

@tunatony - Hmmmm, I wonder how many of you Republicans benefited from the huge 14% tax cut the Republicans passed in 2017. I know the millionaires and billionaires and large corporation benefited, but I doubt and working class Americans benefited from it. The Government lost so much money in taxes because of the savings all of these wealthy people got that the Trump administration has to raise the debt ceiling three times during Trump's 4 year term and the economist did predict that the American taxpayers would pay for it for many years and you know what - we are. But I don't remember hearing any Republicans complaining about that but they'll complain for the slightest increase in inflation though.

[@tunatony]

@@georl1 No you look it up, a-hole and piss off😬

[@georl1]

@@tunatony - I have, loudmouth.

[@terirea7743]

Your wallet thanks you if you're at least a multi-millionaire, a large corporation, or a lobbying industry. Otherwise, the Republicans don't give a rat's ass about you. Wake up!

[@georl1]

@@terirea7743 - You are so right!