Harris' policy preferences could be stymied by SCOTUS realities, even if she wins

Democratic Party presidential nominee Kamala Harris has taken significant heat for arguably hiding from the press and keeping her true policy priorities under wraps.

However, with regard to what is known about the positions she has taken in the past, it may be that she is effectively trapped in terms of achieving the far-left objectives her supporters favor, due to recent rulings and the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, as an article in the New Republic outlines.

Harris agenda faces SCOTUS roadblocks

During her last campaign for her party's presidential nomination, Harris articulated a host of progressive agenda items that many assume remain among her to-do list if elected in November.

However, as Jason Linkins for the New Republic writes, there is a critical difference in the current political landscape that did not exist in 2019, namely, the posture of the highest court in the land.

In the wake of the Trump administration's successful confirmation of three conservative-aligned justices, Harris' potential wish list of policy initiatives touching on climate change, Medicare for All, or any other of the areas through which she has previously attempted to appeal to the liberal base faces an uphill battle, indeed.

Particularly egregious and frustrating to the left, as Linkins notes, is the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the doctrine of Chevron deference, a landmark shift limiting the ability of federal administrative agencies to implement rules to suit the whims of the sitting administration, often undermining the intent of Congress.

Though the move was celebrated by conservatives, Linkins laments that the “best way of describing what the conservative majority did is to say it gave six unelected right-wing politicians who all enjoy a lifetime appointment a line item veto over anything a Democratic Congress -- and by extension Harris -- wants to do, unless they can muster the votes to confront each problem they want to solve with an inhuman amount of hyper-specificity.”

Court-packing arguments resurface

Linkins goes on to complain, “But what makes Chevron crucial to this campaign is that the sledding for Democrats remains rough even if they prevail in November.

He complains that “even if [Democrats] blow the GOP out of the water electorally, the end of Chevron deference is a fail-safe against Democratic policy, constantly running in the background as long as five of the six conservatives on the Roberts court agree.”

“In this way, Harris and her fellow Democrats are locked out of liberal governance,” and as such, he says, liberals everywhere must join in the fight, which may need to include a battle to pack the court with progressives.

Though he remains unsure whether Harris will wish to broach the topic during the heat of the campaign against Trump, Linkin asserts that “the Supreme Court will remain the rock in the road that Democrats must find a way around if they want to improve our lives.”

As Fox News points out, during her last bid for the Oval Office, Harris did admit that she was “open to this conversation about increasing the number of people on the United States Supreme Court,” and that is a dangerous prospect that all voters should bear in mind as they make their choice this fall.