The Supreme Court of the United States, once revered as the arbiter of justice and the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, is now increasingly viewed as a rogue entity operating outside the bounds of law and precedent.
The Court’s reliance on demonstrably false facts and misleading descriptions of prior rulings, particularly under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, has severely undermined its legitimacy and credibility.
The Trump Immunity Case: A Surreal Spectacle
The oral argument in the Trump immunity case serves as a stark example of the Court’s departure from judicial norms. Observing the conservative justices during the proceedings was an exercise in disbelief. It seemed they were willfully ignoring the gravity of an ex-president’s attempts to subvert the peaceful transfer of power—a crisis marked by violence and deceit. The conservative justices, particularly the male members, appeared to invent hypothetical future issues to justify their stance, a stark contrast to the “good for one day” principle espoused in Bush v. Gore. This inconsistency underscores a broader issue: the Court, now dominated by a Republican majority, seems to prioritize partisan interests over the rule of law.
A Pattern of Deception
The Trump v. United States case is not an isolated incident. The Roberts Court has, for nearly two decades, engaged in a pattern of deception and legal manipulation. Whether it’s affirmative action, health care, voting rights, separation of church and state, or the Second Amendment, the Court’s most significant rulings have frequently relied on falsehoods and distortions. This isn’t merely about disagreeing with the outcomes; it’s about recognizing that the methods employed by the Court are antithetical to the principles of legal integrity and transparency.
The Illusion of Rule of Law
The stark contrast between the functioning of the Manhattan trial court in the Trump case and the Supreme Court’s handling of similar matters is illustrative. In a modest courtroom, a jury of twelve ordinary citizens upheld the rule of law under the guidance of Judge Juan Merchan. Meanwhile, in the Supreme Court’s “marble palace,” justice seems to be dispensed based on political convenience rather than legal merit. The Court’s decision to delay, and potentially manipulate, the resolution of Trump’s federal charges speaks volumes about its current priorities.
The Decline of Credibility
The Supreme Court’s credibility has plummeted, particularly following revelations of Justice Samuel Alito’s actions in the wake of January 6. Alito’s refusal to recuse himself from politically charged cases, coupled with his dubious explanations, epitomizes the Court’s descent into partisanship. This behavior aligns with the expectations of Trump’s supporters, who openly anticipate the Court’s intervention on his behalf. Such expectations reflect a disturbing truth: the highest court in the land is perceived not as a beacon of justice, but as a tool of political machination.
The Need for State Courts
In this bleak judicial landscape, state courts emerge as crucial defenders of freedom and equality. Unlike their federal counterpart, state courts operate under the guidance of state laws and constitutions, offering a necessary counterbalance to the Supreme Court’s overreach. Organizations like the Brennan Center are pivotal in supporting state courts and promoting a legal movement to strengthen state constitutional law.
A Call for Accountability
As we witness the Supreme Court’s ongoing failures, it is imperative to hold it accountable for its lawlessness. The Court’s reliance on false facts, its blatant partisanship, and its erosion of legal principles demand scrutiny and reform. Only by acknowledging and addressing these issues can we hope to restore the integrity of our judicial system and ensure that justice, not politics, prevails in the highest court of the land.
