Two years ago, a New York Times columnist concluded that political polarization among Americans 鈥渉as created its own vicious circle.鈥� It has been 鈥渨eeding out moderates, fostering extremists and constraining government action even in times of crisis.鈥� Yet with what many Americans now perceive as a crisis 鈥� the possible reelection of Donald Trump as president 鈥� the Supreme Court on Monday tried to set an example of calm consensus-making.
In a ruling that itself could have been highly polarized, all nine justices agreed that the Constitution does not allow states to bar Mr. Trump from a ballot for federal office even if a state deems the former president guilty of insurrection for the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress, as Colorado had done in this case.
One justice in particular, Amy Coney Barrett, wanted people to know how much the court worked together for judicial harmony. 鈥淭he Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election,鈥� she wrote in a concurring opinion. 鈥淧articularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.
鈥淔or present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.鈥�
One minor difference among the justices was on whether Congress or another entity should now, after this decision, set the rules for barring candidates under the post-Civil War constitutional amendment aimed at keeping insurrectionists from holding federal office. A majority who supported the role of Congress acknowledged the minority鈥檚 dissent. Yet it added that all the reasons given in the ruling help 鈥減rovide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reaches.鈥�
The ruling hints that the current justices, despite past court decisions that widened political divisions, are selecting cases and deciding on them in ways to lessen polarization. The fact that the court so quickly decided this case to accommodate the presidential primaries shows it may be mindful of its public role in taking measured and deliberative approaches to groundbreaking questions.
When asked what she saw as threats to the rule of law, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replied, 鈥淭he problems of indifference, of tribal-like loyalties, lack of observance of the golden rule, 鈥楧o unto others.鈥欌�� She and her ideological opponent on the court, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, were friends with a high respect for one another. They often helped take harsh edges off the other鈥檚 written opinions.
Perhaps a similar respect among the current justices was behind Monday鈥檚 unanimous decision. For Americans who won鈥檛 even talk to their political opposites, that is indeed a message to 鈥渢ake home.鈥�
Amelia Newcomb
