The New York Times Washington correspondent Carl Hulse argues in his book Confirmation Bias that the Republican nominee for president in 2016, Donald Trump, won the election in significant part because the Senate majority leader refused to consider President Obama's nominee Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. During his four year term, President Trump was able to nominate and see confirmed three new justices to that Court. Though the makeup and decisions of the Supreme Court have long been a key issue to Republicans, especially evangelicals, now more than ever both political parties recognize the significance of who is on the Court and the impact their decisions have on American life.
This SDG will look at some of the Court's recent decisions covering issues as disparate as a woman's right to have an abortion to cases involving President Trump, and the actions of his administration. We will examine whether the pundits who decry the tearing down of the 'wall' separating church and state, the diminution of protections accorded people charged with crimes and the inability (under the doctrine of qualified immunity) of those individuals whose rights have been infringed to obtain vindication are correct. We will analyze those cases where the Court has been willing to overrule prior precedents as well as those cases involving voting rights, including Rucho v. Common Cause, a case that could have ameliorated the deep divisions within Congress.
