Few people would argue our judicial system is broken. Evidence of this is seen every day in terms of how the rich are treated and how those less fortunate are treated. This isn’t really new in our lifetimes, it just has been exponentially worse in our lifetimes.
We see this when people of power are convicted, such as Steve Bannon, serve none of their jail sentence (NPR, 10/21/2022). Who remain free to spread the Big Lie and other extreme right-wing propaganda.
We see this when members of Congress ignore subpoenas with impunity. Then get self-righteous when someone ignores the subpoenas they themselves issue, such as Jim Jordan, Kevin McCarthy, Scott Perry, Mo Brooks, and Andy Biggs (USA Today, 12/18/2022).
We see this when the head of the Justice Department, Merrick Garland, continually refuses to hold powerful people accountable for insurrection, spreading of disinformation posing security risks, and other high crimes.
Then we arrive at the United States Supreme Court where some justices are able to break tax laws in reporting gifts, sit on the bench for cases in which there are clear conflicts of interest, and ignore precedence without consequences. A court which then has the audacity to say they can police themselves when anyone with any common sense can see a rehashing of policy already in place and ignored. Also it having the audacity to state no one has authority over them when the Constitution was set up to have checks and balances amongst the three branches of government.
But that isn’t the worst of it really.
It’s bad when the Robert’s court is undermining democracy and the integrity of the court with their decisions. Decisions such as Citizens United, women’s reproductive and health, voter rights and gerrymandering, and even a case predicated on a lie—Lorie Smith and Alliance Defending Freedom case about same-sex marriage discrimination involving website creation (New Republic, 6/30/2023).
It’s worse when the court appears to be acting in cowardice on big decisions out of a potential fear of repercussions by the very people who wanted certain beliefs added to the court. Decisions that are pretty clear-cut, but seem about to be decided using pretzel logic (when one ties oneself in a knot while explaining why what was wrongly decided is actually correct based on case law of hundreds of years ago in a foreign country).
Two such cases are before the court: Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States of America.
Trump v. Anderson is the 14th Amendment Colorado case in which its high court held that Trump may not be on the Colorado ballot due to involvement or support of an insurrection. The 14th Amendment Section 3 explicitly states one cannot engage in an insurrection or rebellion, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [my emphasis]. When a president does not immediately call for law enforcement to squelch an attack on the Capitol, that is a form of aid and comfort of enemies of the United States as any reasonable person would agree. Yet, it seems even the more liberal members of the court are leaning towards overruling Colorado’s decision, and by fiat any other state working towards upholding the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment Section 3 is all about stopping anyone, including Trump, who has engaged in or supported an insurrection. When the 14th Amendment was adopted, it was clear it was to stop people working to subvert the Constitution and our democracy from ever holding office at any point in time and at all levels of government.
And yet, here we are without a clear cut decision by the Robert’s Court. Here we are about to let a direct, or indirect, insurrectionist on the ballot. The argument made that one state should not be able to decide for the country is ludicrous. Have they not heard of the electoral college in that one state can, in fact, affect an entire election depending on how the numbers hold up.
We finally end at Trump v. United States of America. This is another clear cut court case. The decision, a loss by Trump, already made by a Court of Appeals, hinges on whether a president has absolute immunity at all times and for all actions made by a president. De facto meaning a president is above the law. Trump’s lawyer even argued a president could murder a political opponent without legal ramifications. What a scary thought that a president can act king-like, nay God-like, punishing any and all who oppose him or fails to follow his orders. These are the kinds of actions that happen in authoritarian regimes, such as Putin’s Russia, Jong-il’s North Korea, Jintao’s China, Abdullah’s Saudi Arabia, Seyed Ali Khamenei’s Iran, Musharraf’s Pakistan, Erdoğan’s Turkey, Pinochet’s Chile, etc., etc., etc.. Do we really want these types of leaders running the United States (although I might argue we already are well on our way with the elected Trumpist-Republicans).
The Supreme Court can have an easy win, and an even easier out, for Trump v. United States of America: They can refuse to hear the case thereby allowing the Appeal Court’s decision to stand, or they can issue a shadow docket ruling. Either way the Supremes shine the light back on the Appeals Court. Both can be done in very short order and allow the many other cases against Trump to continue post haste currently delayed awaiting a decision.
Alternatively, they can, of course, choose to hear the case. Thus throwing a very bright light on the Justices. They would have the final decision on whether the United States has a President with limited powers, or a dictator who may act as he, or she, chooses. To act as benevolently (for good) or malevolently (for evil) as they wish. Having the latter means no person in the U.S. (or even internationally) is safe from prosecution, torture, imprisonment, reprogramming camps, and/or even death.
Personally, I don’t want a President with unlimited powers with immunity from laws, even if they may act benevolently. I want a government with working checks and balances.
I guess we shall see if the Supremes are cowardly and bow to authoritarianism, or will they uphold our democracy.
Sadly, I fear the former.
Personal Reflections of a Middle-Aged Man 