THE SUPREME COURT IS A THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY

Based on the Supreme Court’s decisions of the last few weeks, we should all be in the streets protesting and storming the Supreme Court. Its decisions undermine the Constitution and our system of government, while giving the president king-like status.

(Note: If you find my posts too long to read on occasion, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

Based on the Supreme Court’s decisions of the last few weeks, we should all be in the streets protesting and storming the Supreme Court. Their decisions undermine the Constitution and our system of government as it’s worked for over 200 years. I won’t go into the details of the decisions because you’ve probably read or heard about them. I’ll just state that this is a radical, reactionary Court – not a conservative one by any stretch of the imagination. (See this previous post for details.)

The six radical, reactionary justices on the Court totally disregard precedents both in content and procedure to make rulings that are political and ideological, not grounded in law or the Constitution. Their claim of being true to the original text and intent of the Constitution is a blatant lie – a smoke screen for making rulings out of thin air that suit their political purposes. This is judicial activism in the extreme, which conservatives used to decry (and still would if they were true conservatives).

Moreover, the six radical, activist justices stated in their congressional confirmation hearings that they would respect precedents; they would call balls and strikes but not change the rules of the game. It’s now clear they were lying and committing perjury.

With its recent decision on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, the Court puts the president above the rule of law. The decision exempts the president from the rule of law for all official acts (and probably for many unofficial acts as well). This grants the president king-like status.

This is in blatant contradiction to what the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution and made clear in their writings. The Constitution does mention immunity – for citizens, for witnesses to crimes, and for legislators in limited cases (for speech or debate in congressional chambers). Clearly, the writers of the Constitution thought carefully about immunity and did NOT grant it to the president. The supposed constitutional originalists on the Supreme Court invented presidential immunity out of thin air, presumably for political reasons.

Historian Heather Cox Richardson has a clear and concise interview (6 mins.) on the immunity issue and has written about it in her Letters from an American blog. Her blog post includes quotes from the confirmation hearings of Justices Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh where they stated that no one is above the law. Therefore, they have, very specifically, shown that their congressional testimony was a lie and that they committed perjury.

Retired lawyer Robert Hubbell states that the Court’s presidential immunity decision (and others) by the six radical justices shows that the “Supreme Court is lawless.” The immunity decision “overthrew the American Revolution and anointed the US president as a modern-day king.” He succinctly outlines what the decision does and gives examples of what a president can now do without fear of criminal prosecution, including accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon and direct the Justice Department to target political enemies. With this immunity in place, what President Nixon did during Watergate would presumably have been completely legal. [1]

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision leaves it to the courts (i.e., ultimately itself) to decide what are “official” (immune from prosecution) and “unofficial” presidential acts, and also to decide what evidence can be used in a prosecution. Therefore, the Court has arrogated substantial power to itself over the implementation of its presidential immunity ruling – a real power grab.

The hypocrisy of the six radical Supreme Court justices who claim to be constitutional “originalists” is laid bare by their decisions. For example, they have ruled:

·         For very strong presidential immunity, which is not only nowhere in the Constitution, but contradicts the Constitution and its writers. This ruling’s lack of a constitutional basis is made clear by provisions for other immunities that ARE in the Constitution and by the expressed sentiments of the writers of the Constitution that the president should NOT be above the law and have king-like powers.

·         Against banning an insurrectionist from the ballot, despite clear language in the Constitution that an insurrectionist cannot hold elected office without 2/3 approval from Congress.

My next post will discuss the Supreme Court’s decimation of the power of executive branch agencies to implement laws and protect workers, consumers, and residents through rules and regulations.

[1]      Hubbell, R., 7/2/24, “The Supreme Court is the biggest threat to democracy we face,” Today’s Edition Newsletter (https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-is-the-biggest)