When we hear about Supreme Court justices in the minority, we usually think about those on the losing side of a particular ruling.

But these days, five out of the nine individuals who sit on the high court and help make up the six to three conservative majority are numerical minority justices.

So they were indeed confirmed by a Senate majority, but the senators who approve their nominations don't actually represent a majority of American voters.

From KERA in Dallas, this is think. I'm Chris Boyd.

There is nothing illegal about numerical minority confirmations, but they may have contributed to

some distinct mismatches between what American citizens say they want and what a handful of

unelected justices say they can have under the Constitution.

And my guest thinks the court has lost legitimacy as a result. Kevin J. McMahon is John R.

Reitmeier, Professor of Political Science at Trinity College and author of a Supreme Court unlike any other,

the deepening divide between the justices and the people. Kevin, welcome to think.

Great to be here. Thank you for inviting me. You open the book by reminding us of the Dobbs ruling in

2022, which after almost 50 years of precedent, declared that the Constitution, in fact, does not

guarantee a right to abortion.

Why was this the one that got many Americans wondering whether the court really represents their interests?

Well, I think most clearly, if you look at public opinion polls right before that decision was released,

and people were asked the question, whether the court should row or keep it in place, a substantial majority of Americans wanted to keep it in place.

So it was a court acting on a major issue, right, on a hot button issue, in a clearly,

in a fashion, clearly inconsistent with the

majority of Americans.

I've heard the argument that the court is not supposed to care what most Americans actually want,

that it kind of floats above and it's there just to interpret the laws in light of what

the Constitution says.

...