Ep. 22: Supreme polarization - a podcast by American Economic Association

Democrats may control the White House and Congress, but Republicans have a clear advantage on the nation’s highest court. 

Sixteen of the last 20 appointments to the Supreme Court have been GOP nominees, including six of nine sitting justices.

Critics say that this has caused an imbalance of power that threatens the court’s legitimacy. University of Chicago law professor Daniel Hemel questions, however, whether some of the reforms being discussed would help.

Hemel has a paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives arguing that ideological polarization on the Supreme Court is nothing new. And while it’s true that Republicans have dominated recent appointments, proposals like 18-year term limits would do little to address partisan fighting. In fact, term limits could make matters even worse.

Hemel spoke with the AEA’s Chris Fleisher about the history of ideological division on the Supreme Court, proposals for creating a more balanced court, and what changes he believes hold the most promise for addressing those concerns.

Further episodes of AEA Research Highlights

Further podcasts by American Economic Association

Website of American Economic Association