The Supreme Court Threatens, Not Safeguards, Our Constitution

In honor of Ginsburg’s memory, it must be reformed.

This week, Americans celebrated the 233rd anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution. Then we mourned the loss of one of its strongest champions: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Students of American government are taught that the Supreme Court, where Ginsburg served for 27 years, is the guardian of the constitution; its interpretations of the centuries-old text are final. While laws and executive orders can be struck down, the only mechanism of overruling the nation’s highest court is to amend the constitution itself, a famously difficult process that has only happened 27 times in that 233-year period.

That or wait for a change in the court’s composition to produce a reversal.

Unlike Congress and the presidency, the Supreme Court has historically commanded respect across the political spectrum. That consensus, however, has eroded in recent years as ideological groups have begun to prioritize control of the courts.

In light of this loss of confidence in the impartiality of our nation’s courts, advocates have stepped up calls for reform. Several worthwhile ideas have been pitched from every corner, from the nation’s leading legal experts to…