EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece was originally published as part of the Spring 2019 magazine.
Land of the free, home of the brave: phrases that have come to be associated with the very existence of American democracy. There is a strong, domestic belief that America is the epitome of freedom, offering profound opportunity to all who inhabit it. Therefore, it may come as a shock to some that the United States has slid down in ranks of the “most free” countries on earth.
Freedom House releases their Freedom in the World Report annually. The report categorizes every country as free, partly free, or not free in addition to a freedom score from 1 to 100. Democracy should never be viewed as complete or perfect, which is part of the mission of Freedom House: identify where there are global threats to freedom. It would be foolish to say that any democracy has reached full perfection, and it is therefore important that reports like this exist to identify areas of concern or improvement. In the For the status of freedom in the United States to be included and given its own section among one of the most egregious human rights abuses in modern history is extremely concerning.
Freedom House notes in its key findings that “the United States retreated from its traditional role as both a champion and an exemplar of democracy amid an accelerating decline in American political rights and civil liberties.” There is a long list of things that one might consider to be the cause of this decline in “political rights and civil liberties.” President Donald Trump has invoked a strong distrust in the media during an era in which global threats to free journalism have gained significant attention. Perhaps it is the high levels of police brutality and mass incarceration that create systematic barriers preventing black men and women from exercising their rights as American citizens. Or maybe it is the inefficiency of legal institutions to respond to the growing number of sexual assault survivors coming forward in the era of #MeToo. While these all undoubtedly contribute to a climate that violates the rights of certain groups of American citizens, Freedom House homed in on threats to the United States’ independent judiciary as a primary concern for the decline in American freedom.
As Members of Congress like to acknowledge frequently, Supreme Court Justices used to be confirmed by the Senate almost unanimously. In 1993, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3. In 2009, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68 to 31. Today, confirmations for Supreme Court Justices always divide straight down party lines. Furthermore, the confirmation of these justices have become political spectacles, pitting members, organizations, and everyday citizens against each other. During the appointment confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and addressing sexual assault allegations against him, political groups and elected officials openly questioned his moral character and his fitness to serve in the highest court. These confirmation hearings were important and legitimate, designed to address the kinds of allegations against him; however, they were not designed to create political campaigns for and against appointments. Powerful advocacy and lobbying groups spent millions of dollars attacking or praising Kavanaugh through television and digital advertising. For example, the anti-Kavanaugh group, Demand Justice, spent $700,000 immediately following the allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The pro-Kavanaugh group, Judicial Crisis Network, planned to spend $1.5 million on advertising.
In addition to this trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Nominee Merrick Garland by former President Barack Obama in 2016. President Obama picked a judge who had been praised by both Democrats and Republicans alike, yet Senator McConnell cited the upcoming presidential election as the reason to block the confirmation. There was no precedent for this action; the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice was seen as a political appointment, designed to serve the party in power rather than serving in an independent judiciary. Rather than fill a vacancy that needed to be filled, the Republican leader sought to postpone the work of the court in order to appoint a figure who aligned with him politically.
Additionally, President Trump has invoked a strong distrust of judges who disagree with him, degrading this sense of an independent judiciary that is essential for a thriving democracy. In 2017, he referred to the court who blocked his travel ban as “so-called judges.” These setbacks in judicial independence present a concern for American freedom. In order to ensure American citizens can exercise fully their civil rights and liberties, the politicization of judicial decisions and nominees must be curtailed to encourage fair and partial trials and laws.
However, a point of optimism also lies in Freedom House’s focus on threats to U.S. political rights and civil liberties. Threats to freedom and corrupt practices in the United States will remain salient both domestically and internationally. Despite its declining international moral image, countries and organizations will continue to look to the United States as a leader in freedom and democratic values, often criticizing its policies at home and abroad. Therefore, it is important that American leaders live up to the values they espouse. After all, democracy has not yet been perfected and leaders in the United States need to continue to refine and reform practices that may pose a threat to freedom globally.