What do you think?
Rate this book
A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other: The Deepening Divide Between the Justices and the People
A data-rich examination of the US Supreme Court's unprecedented detachment from the democratic processes that buttress its legitimacy.
Today’s Supreme Court is unlike any other in American history. This is not just because of its jurisprudence but also because the current Court has a tenuous relationship with the democratic processes that help establish its authority. Historically, this “democracy gap” was not nearly as severe as it is today. Simply put, past Supreme Courts were constructed in a fashion far more in line with the promise of democracy—that the people decide and the majority rules.
Drawing on historical and contemporary data alongside a deep knowledge of court battles during presidencies ranging from FDR to Donald Trump, Kevin J. McMahon charts the developments that brought us here. McMahon offers insight into the altered politics of nominating and confirming justices, the shifting pool of Supreme Court hopefuls, and the increased salience of the Court in elections. A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other is an eye-opening account of today’s Court within the context of US history and the broader structure of contemporary politics.
Today’s Supreme Court is unlike any other in American history. This is not just because of its jurisprudence but also because the current Court has a tenuous relationship with the democratic processes that help establish its authority. Historically, this “democracy gap” was not nearly as severe as it is today. Simply put, past Supreme Courts were constructed in a fashion far more in line with the promise of democracy—that the people decide and the majority rules.
Drawing on historical and contemporary data alongside a deep knowledge of court battles during presidencies ranging from FDR to Donald Trump, Kevin J. McMahon charts the developments that brought us here. McMahon offers insight into the altered politics of nominating and confirming justices, the shifting pool of Supreme Court hopefuls, and the increased salience of the Court in elections. A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other is an eye-opening account of today’s Court within the context of US history and the broader structure of contemporary politics.
377 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 12, 2024
2 people are currently reading
40 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 1, 2025
Kevin J. McMahon’s The Supreme Court Unlike Any Other examines the Court’s growing “democracy gap” — the widening distance between the Court and the democratic processes that give it legitimacy.
--Opens with the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade as a key example of how unelected justices can overturn long-standing rights despite majority support.
--Frames the Court as increasingly detached from the principle of majority rule.
***
Three major shifts identified:
1. Appointments and confirmations – Presidents without strong popular mandates and senators representing minority populations have appointed “numerical minority justices.”
2. Who gets selected – Modern justices come from a narrow “supreme elite” (elite law schools, federal clerkships, appellate judiciary) rather than the diverse backgrounds of past justices.
3. The Court in campaigns – The Court has become a central electoral issue, with candidates promising voters specific ideological outcomes from nominations.
***
These changes have produced a Court unlike earlier ones, which scholars once described as broadly aligned with political majorities.
-Longer tenures mean fewer opportunities for natural turnover.
-Reform proposals like court expansion or term limits are considered, but real change is difficult under existing structures.
***
McMahon concludes that the Court’s construction represents a break with democratic traditions.
-The issue is not simply ideology but legitimacy.
-The Court’s insulation from electoral accountability raises the risk of constitutional conflict and a crisis in public trust.
--Opens with the 2022 Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade as a key example of how unelected justices can overturn long-standing rights despite majority support.
--Frames the Court as increasingly detached from the principle of majority rule.
***
Three major shifts identified:
1. Appointments and confirmations – Presidents without strong popular mandates and senators representing minority populations have appointed “numerical minority justices.”
2. Who gets selected – Modern justices come from a narrow “supreme elite” (elite law schools, federal clerkships, appellate judiciary) rather than the diverse backgrounds of past justices.
3. The Court in campaigns – The Court has become a central electoral issue, with candidates promising voters specific ideological outcomes from nominations.
***
These changes have produced a Court unlike earlier ones, which scholars once described as broadly aligned with political majorities.
-Longer tenures mean fewer opportunities for natural turnover.
-Reform proposals like court expansion or term limits are considered, but real change is difficult under existing structures.
***
McMahon concludes that the Court’s construction represents a break with democratic traditions.
-The issue is not simply ideology but legitimacy.
-The Court’s insulation from electoral accountability raises the risk of constitutional conflict and a crisis in public trust.
Read
March 21, 20251 star, unfinished
dropped at page 35
boring nonfiction book following a recent trend of boring nonfiction books that i even i can’t slog through. free me from this nonsense. political science doesn’t have to be this mind-numbing.
dropped at page 35
boring nonfiction book following a recent trend of boring nonfiction books that i even i can’t slog through. free me from this nonsense. political science doesn’t have to be this mind-numbing.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews