California Democrats, who have expressed a desire to reshape the Supreme Court, have repeatedly benefited from decisions made by the current conservative majority, according to an opinion piece in the California Post. Democrats have advocated for expanding the court by adding seats to fill them with liberal justices, a move supported by figures like Governor Gavin Newsom and Senator Adam Schiff. However, the piece argues that conservative rulings have provided a crucial buffer against what it describes as the "worst tendencies" of liberal governance.
The author points to a recent LA County Superior Court decision where a judge dismissed a decade-long lawsuit against the City of Santa Monica. The suit, brought by attorney Kevin Shenkman under the California Voting Rights Act, sought to force the city to abandon its at-large election system for a district-based one, arguing it disadvantaged minority candidates. The judge cited the Supreme Court's April decision in Callais v. Louisiana, which restricted racial gerrymandering, to dismiss the case. This ruling, decided 6-3 with liberal justices in the minority, allowed Santa Monica to maintain its existing election system.
Another example cited is the 2024 Grants Pass case, where the Court ruled 6-3 that cities and states have the authority to clear homeless encampments. This decision, according to the piece, empowered Governor Newsom and other state and local officials to implement policies for removing encampments from public spaces. Newsom stated that the ruling provided the "definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments." The article posits that without this conservative ruling, addressing homelessness through encampment removal would be significantly more challenging for California officials.
The piece suggests that while Democratic calls to expand the Supreme Court aim to counter its conservative majority, the conservative justices have acted more independently than their liberal counterparts. It claims that liberal justices tend to vote as a bloc aligned with the Democratic Party agenda, while conservative justices have occasionally ruled against Republican policies, citing the striking down of Trump-era tariffs as an example. Ultimately, the author contends that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court acts as a restraint on extreme tendencies and has, paradoxically, enabled California Democrats to govern more effectively by preventing potentially more disruptive outcomes driven by purely liberal legal interpretations.