Supreme Court: It's a Dialog, Not an Isolated Oracle

Rather than boldly paving new roads, the Supreme Court functions largely as a bellwether of public opinion, cementing change “rather than propelling it,” writes Linda Greenhouse, looking back on some 30 years of reporting on the court for the New York Times. The justices don’t constitute a “remote oracle”--instead, they function as part of America’s ever-changing political dialog.

The public can override an opinion it dislikes, as in the 2002 decision in favor of school vouchers, a program which “stalled almost everywhere.” In other cases, court sentiment may bow to the public, as in a post-9/11 decision that boosted federal power despite a court agenda against federalism. In the end, while we may not have the court we want or need, “we have, most likely, the Supreme Court we deserve,” Greenhouse observes. (More US Supreme Court stories.)