Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate and the office of the president where the people of the country can shift the balance of power, the ideological bent of the country, every two or four years, the third branch of government, the Supreme Court (today, nine men and women) operates on a much longer cycle. The time frame is uncertain as judicial ideologies shift 6-3 to 5-4 then 4-5 from more conservative to more liberal (or vice versa) as individual appointments are confirmed. When a critical fifth vote is confirmed for one side or the other, the ideological bent of the court shifts.
With hindsight, the above reality is clear. Conservative or isolationist views held sway in the post-World War 1 era, the 1920s, 30s and early 40s. Then came the more liberal swing of the Warren/Burger courts, (the late 40s to the early 70s).
We are now in the mid-stage of an increasingly conservative, Rehnquist/Roberts era, bent on unraveling what many see as the social justice gains of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. These pendulum swings of the court do not bode well for the well-being of the country. Seemingly settled norms (tax and trade policies, abortion, voting, environmental, and human rights, necessary regulatory controls) become unsettled.
At best, the lives of many will be made more difficult and more uncertain. At worst, people will die. Calls for Supreme Court reform (enlarging the court, term limits, imposing rigorous ethical standards) are whistles in the wind.
The makeup of the .
