In the last few weeks, the United States Supreme Court again captured headlines after a series of controversial decisions. These decisions are substantial enough in scope to alter the country’s future fundamentally.
Progressive judges are outnumbered, with the current court being split six to three in favor of conservatives. It should come as no surprise that the basis for many decisions comes primarily from conservative ideology.
At best, this court has ruled based on tradition and conservative values. At worst, this court has made strides to challenge the fabric of democracy. Striking at the cracks in the system, the court has used the power of judicial review to make drastic changes to how the government operates.
These decisions often go largely against the population’s ideations, failing to represent the change that the majority of people would like to see.
The Supreme Court is out of control, abusing its self-fulfilling power to give itself more.
A New Precedent
In Trump v. United States, a case likely to become a historic landmark, the court held in favor of Donald Trump. Those favoring Trump consisted of the same six individuals responsible for many of the conservative-leaning decisions of the last decade.
This decision gives Trump, and any president, total immunity from prosecution for conduct involving official acts while in office.
The language here is intentionally vague, and although it includes the events of January 6th, it is unclear exactly how far this reaches.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent to the decision that explains some of the possible ramifications.
“[If the President] Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” the dissent read. “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
This resolution challenges the American ideal that no one is above the law. It doesn’t help that this particular position happens to be the commander-in-chief of the largest military in the world and leader of a global economic powerhouse.
“The President is now a king above the law,” said Sotomayor.
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
Zooming out, this court is infamous for its controversial decision-making, pioneered by the majority-holding right-leaning judges.
In 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned, stripping women of their right to an abortion. A decision that 62% of women continue to disagree with.
West Virginia v. EPA rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon output. It was a massive blow in the war against climate change.
In the biggest attack on homelessness in decades, the court also ruled last month to criminalize individuals sleeping in public.
This decision blatantly ignores all of the factors that have led to the rising homelessness epidemic plaguing American cities. Instead, opting towards subjecting them to the prison system, a system notorious for its inability to rehabilitate people.
The decision lacks empathy and compassion, but, most importantly, it lacks critical thinking. This decision may remedy a symptom but does not solve the problem.
In all three of these cases, the nine judges’ split has been the same: six to three.
Follow The Money
The influence of money in politics is nothing new.
Since Citizens United v. FEC, we’ve allowed corporations to spend as much as they wanted on election donations. While this weakened the legitimacy of the executive branch, there remained hope that this sort of monetary influence would remain adjacent to the judiciary branch. This has proven to be false.
Although persuading Supreme Court justices with money requires jumping through substantial legal loopholes, it is not impossible.
Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the six conservative judges, has received over $4 million in gifts throughout his career. Whether it’s private jet travel, real estate benefits or luxury accommodations, Thomas can’t seem to keep his hands off of sponsorships.
Although the most infamous of this behavior, he’s hardly alone. Left-leaning judge and liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg was also no stranger to receiving donor gifts.
When justices don’t accept money, they pass legislation that empowers the wealthy. The recent overturning of Chevron Deference again places substantial political power in the hands of large corporations.
The more that finances begin to influence politics, the less of a say the public gets in determining policy. With wealth inequality at an all-time high, the Supreme Court will never represent a population that can’t afford them.
When justices aren’t accepting money, they’re passing legislation.
We The People
These nine individuals exist outside of a ballot. They are not appointed directly by the people and do not represent them in any form. These nine justices, boasting their adjacency to the bias of public opinion, can’t seem to shake their own bias.
Ruling against women. Ruling against the planet. Ruling against the people.
Despite being populated by public servants by definition, this court forsakes its legitimacy at every opportunity. If their personal beliefs don’t guide their actions, it’s money and lots of it.
The implications of recent rulings are as ambiguous as they are dangerous.
The burden for irresponsible governance will once again be placed on the people who will continue to lack the ability to do anything about it conveniently.
