What Happens When Democrats Start Ignoring U.S. Supreme Court Rulings They Don’t Like?
“In one of the most chilling developments in our history, the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists in calling for defiance and radical measures against the Supreme Court.”
For months now, various Democrats and their media allies have repeatedly been trying to delegitimize the U.S. Supreme Court openly on television and social media.
There are no coincidences. This is part of a political strategy. If the court is seen as illegitimate, rulings by the court which are disliked by Democrats and members of their progressive base can be ignored.
Does that sound completely crazy? It’s already happening.
Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and a political scientist from the San Francisco State University named Aaron Belkin recently penned an open letter to Joe Biden urging him to embrace “Popular Constitutionalism.”
They published it at the Balkinization Blog:
An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism
Aaron Belkin and I have written the following open letter to the Biden administration urging that it endorse and take steps to implement popular constitutionalism as a response to what the President has described as “not a normal” Supreme Court. We urge readers to let the administration know in their own ways that reinvigorating the long and honored tradition of popular constitutionalism is both viable and urgently needed in today’s circumstances.
Here’s part of their letter:
We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations.
We have worked diligently over the past five years to advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.
The central tenet of the solution that we recommend—Popular Constitutionalism—is that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. In practice, a President who disagrees with a court’s interpretation of the Constitution should offer and then follow an alternative interpretation. If voters disagree with the President’s interpretation, they can express their views at the ballot box.
You should read the whole thing.
Professor Jonathan Turley wrote about this at The Hill:
Tyranny of the minority: Liberal law profs urge Biden to defy the courts and the public
“I shall resist any illegal federal court order.”
When “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong,” the president should refuse to follow it.
Those two statements were made roughly 60 years apart. The first is from segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D). The second was made by two liberal professors this month.
In one of the most chilling developments in our history, the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists in calling for defiance and radical measures against the Supreme Court.
In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.” Thus, in light of the court’s bar on the use of race in college admissions, they argue that Biden should just continue to follow his own constitutional interpretation…
What is most striking about these professors is how they continue to claim they are defenders of democracy, yet seek to use unilateral executive authority to defy the courts and, in cases like the tuition forgiveness and affirmative action, the majority of the public.
Jim Thompson of RedState adds this:
America cannot function unless the three branches of government operate as they were intended. Congress passes laws, and if they comport to constitutional mandate, they are enforced by the executive branch. If they are not constitutional, the Supreme Court must strike down those laws, and the executive branch is mandated to abide by those decisions. What the president cannot do is simply act as a proxy king and ignore the Supreme Court.
Yet, here we are. That is what men like Tushnet and Belkin want and why they are dangerous.
Stephen L. Miller, who writes for the Spectator and the Washington Examiner, has been raising the alarm on this since 2018.
Me in 2018. pic.twitter.com/J2sHfGY6oD
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) July 21, 2023
No. The long term plan is to ignore SCOTUS rulings from a court they claim is illegitimate and media who will back them up on it. So what happens then?
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 14, 2018
I dunno. There better be a plan in place when "popular constitutionalism" catches fire in the media. https://t.co/6rB7m6VB33
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) July 20, 2023
All the talk from the left about Trump destroying our norms was window dressing. What happens when Democrats start ignoring the Supreme Court?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Of course the dems can ignore any SCOTUS ruling, who’s gonna do anything to make them comply, Garland, Wray, The US Marshalls?
‘…who’s gonna make them comply…’
It won’t be who so much as what. When one branch of the Federal govt, the executive, says to SCOTUS ‘eff off we gonna do what we want’ they’re not only telling that to SCOTUS but to the Constitution itself, to the 50 States and to the 335 million people in the USA. Choosing to declare that we only have to go along with things we like in our judicial system and within our Constitution is a horrible idea.
Announcing that you ‘ain’t gonna follow the opinion of SCOTUS’ in a particular ruling b/c you disagree with it AUTOMATICALLY enables every State govt, the Congress, and every person to reject whatever SCOTUS decisions they don’t like and more importantly to reject the parts of the Constitution they don’t like.
If Biden says ‘screw this opinion that says I can’t act like a King and simply waive student debt’. Ok what’s to stop border States from choosing to ignore prior SCOTUS decisions that preclude them from arresting illegal immigrants and deporting them themselves? Why should those States feel constrained by an unfavorable SCOTUS decision? Why should you or I for that matter?
Once we go down this road there’s NOTHING to stop States from doing so unless the Feds use force which brings it’s own set of issues and secondary, tertiary impacts.
IMO what will ultimately restrain this insanity are ‘consequences and repercussions’ either directly as I described in response or indirectly with the recognition of the potential for the tit for tat and then some escalation until we spiral into a very.dark place.
“”If Biden says ‘screw this opinion that says I can’t act like a King and simply waive student debt’.””
Biden is hardly the first one who decided to ignore the other two branches (Yes, I know, it isn’t Biden, it’s the ruling junta behind him). He’s just building on his predecessors’ actions. It’s always been the case that the rule of law depends on the willingness of the powerful to bow to it. The left clearly believes that they have accumulated enough power to ignore it. Welcome to the old/new reality of “might makes right”.
IMO the rule of law depends upon the willingness of all of us to bow to it not just the powerful. Even if only the powerful need choose to bow the States have their own power. You and I have a measure of power as well.
I don’t think these leftists pushing a neo feudal concept of Kingship upon our Constitutional order fully understand that it remains a voluntary system of reciprocal rights, duties and responsibilities. Once a President seeks to abrogate his own duty to comply he has simultaneously abrogated the duty to comply for the rest of the participants. It won’t be a question of if but to what degree, when and how often the rest of the participants assert their own power.
I don’t disagree with your points in theory, and I didn’t mean to imply that the proletariat don’t have a role in this, but how long do these frogs have to boil before they decide they don’t need any more heat? We’ve moved a long way from the Constitution, and all I see anywhere is internet warriors beating their electronic chests and eagerly awaiting the next stolen election behind a massively flawed candidate who did little to nothing to stop the fraud when he was actually in a position to do so. In fact, his “plan” involves nothing more than to cheat harder than the other guy – a concept fully embraced by his supporters. That isn’t going to restore the Republic.
txvet2,
No worries, this is a good discussion.
IMO, those of us who have seen ground combat in person as direct participants and observed the destructive aftermath, particularly in those conflicts of a sectarian nature or civil war probably have a much longer fuse on average than the keyboard wannabe warriors.
As long as the basic Constitutional order holds and no one in effect says ‘eff it, we doing things differently’ then most people will be reluctant to upset the apple cart, which, on balance, is a good thing. The issue is these leftist versions of the keyboard wannabes who recklessly urge Biden to intentionally upset the apple cart and don’t understand that once it begins the States and individuals can follow the dangerous precedent of ignoring this or that aspect of of our Constitutional order which they disagree with. They seem to be under the delusion that they can control events after doing so and that there won’t be any negative consequences. Alternatively they may think those consequences acceptable because they believe (mistakenly) they can somehow manage to control the demon once they summon it.
I had another response all typed out, but I just want to make one point. The future you envision already exists on the Left Coast, and is expanding. We don’t need to imagine what it’s going to look like when they lose control, we can already see it in action.
Hitler used a similar bold strategy to consolidate power after his minority party finagled his appointment as Chancellor. The Nazis only got 37.3% of the popular vote in the 1932 elections, and he lost the Presidential election to Von Hindenburg. However, the aged President quickly acquiesced to pressures from right wing factions and industrialists fearful of Communist gains, and appointed him Chancellor, which gave him enough access to State resources to consolidate his power and eliminate enough opposition to take total command upon Von Hindenburg’s death in 1934. We are allowing a determined progressive minority to gain access to enough resources to similarly seize power here. All that is lacking is a crisis sufficient to generate widespread fear and a charismatic fuhrer. And that’s exactly where Newsom plans to step in, once things really deteriorate.
It also depends on a massive Executive Branch bureaucracy to enforce it. Technical means matter. As long as the bureaucracy obeys the Executive, and the Treasury keeps the money flowing on the electronic ledgers, why does the President need Congress or the Courts?
no, it does not enable anyone else to ignore an opinion they do not like. The Feds can send in US troops to enforce, ala Ike sending troops to integrate schools, but there is no state, or group of individuals that can or will do likewise to any entity of the federal government, especially a president
The fact is, just like I stated above, there is Nothing to prevent TX from observing the President disrupt the Constitutional order and choosing to do likewise. Nothing except the use of Force by the Feds to prevent or to stop that State or individual action.
You even agreed with that by restating my point ‘The Feds can send in US troops to enforce…’. That’s the use of force which brings it’s own set of problems. Troops gonna obey? All of them? What if they don’t? Will the confrontation between State and Fed forces be peaceful? Will the State forces meekly give up or stand aside? What if they don’t? What happens if some a-hole starts shooting? How much furor will that create? Nothing is certain and that’s my point everyone who believes they know exactly how any of this may play out is full of it. .
There are plenty of historical examples of individuals and groups acting in defiance of or aggression towards the Federal govt. See Cliven Bundy (who prevailed) in his 2014 standoff with Bureau of Land Management. Heck see J6.
I ain’t endorsing those actions just stating what should be an uncontroversial point; things don’t always work out as expected and anyone who deliberately upsets the Constitutional order can have certainty of where it will lead. Better for everyone if no one chooses to do so, IMO.
Unless someone gets too big for their knickers and decides to impose their will by dint of open force, things will continue to roll along, even if somewhat bumpily. But what happens when a George Wallace decides HE is above the law and the courts? That time the sitting president called George’s pompous bluff and beat him at his own game. The yellow busses began to roll, defying Wallace and Company. who were sufficiently deluded to believe they would prevail. As were the election fraud crew in Athens Tennessee back about 1925 or so. They had failed to take into account the hundreds of local citizens who had just gotten back home from fighting a war to preserve our national integrity. What’s a few angry frauds upstairs in the local armoury?
These clowns poke the bear in the eye often and hard enough they will eventually face the shock that will arise when they poke the bear one too many times, and too hard.
The Battle of Athens Tennessee was in August 1946 with returning WWII veterans opposing local Democrat political machine corruption with force of arms:
https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens
True, that! Biden and his cronies just did this by passing over Pacific Fleet Commander, a white man but with current expertise confronting the China threat, to lead the U.S. Navy, in favor of a woman currently serving in the Pentagon! Time to sue
In fairness she is currently the Vice Chief of Naval Operations so it isn’t as if she’s fetching coffee or cranking out TPS reports. She’s gonna move up one spot to become Chief of Naval Operations.
The unusual thing is the WH ignoring the recommendation of their Sec Defense and not appointing the CDR PAC Fleet which is IMO both a far more important position and also a ‘war fighting’ command v a ‘desk job’. Ability as an able administrator is important but not more so than proven leadership at the most important Naval Command, Pacific Fleet. Biden seems to disagree and it’s his call.
The framers thought the inner voice, the conscience, of the oath-taker would be sufficient. Reminds me of President Muffley pointing to the language of Plan R which authorized only the president to issue the Go Code,
Muffley:
General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.
Turgidson:
That’s right sir. You are the only person authorized to do so. And although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it’s beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority.
When the President can ignore the Supreme Court and he is the only arbiter of what is legal…
It means civil war, version 2.0
and OUR hurt.
In many countries where this sort of thing happens, the out of control head poohbah often gets offed by some “mysteriously unknown entity”. Then its game over and the board gets reset once more.
Welcome to Communism: obtain power by any means necessary, and retain it at all costs.
Meanwhile, safely ensconced in their gated communities and private islands, the Uniparty sits back and lets it happen.
What happens when Democrats start ignoring the Supreme Court?
Exactly what happened every other time the left has broken the law. Nothing.
This is just the next hill that the GOPe will not die on.
This.
Not only will they not die on this hill, they won’t fight–and if their leftist masters demand it they might kick a few of those who’ve noticed their perfidy just to keep things ‘stable’.
No, the GOPe will not die on that hill. But then again there is nothing that says that the only “opposition” to the Left will forever be the ineffective GOPe. Indeed, as the GOPe represents the country and its people less and less, there is more room for another entity. However, in the absence of an over-riding Constitution accepted by all, and a Social Contract; just as there is no limitation on the actions of the Left anymore there will be no limitation on the actions of any others. Nor a peaceful way to create mutual limitations. We move from Thomas Hobbes to Karl von Clausewitz.
To use a phrase that I stole from a commenter at INSTAPUNDIT, there is no more “Rule of Law”. There is only the “Law of Rule”.
“Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln.”
Subotai Bahadur
“War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.”
I’ve been saying it for years, now: We are at war. Prepare accordingly.
The vile Dumb-o-crats are nothing if not creative with their contrived and obnoxiously dishonest euphemisms.
“Popular Constitutionalism” is nothing more than lawless mob rule and despotism, dressed up to sound nice and palatable.
I am trying to wrap my brain around that phrase.. popular constitutionalism… Sorry,, it just seems like an oxymoron to me.
What eventually happens? Raw democracy meaning mob rule instead of majority rule. The Democrat party is a building threat to our Republic and seems to be willing to end it and replace it with themselves and their populist religion.
Not even “raw democracy.” A chief executive who can ignore SCOTUS can also ignore Congress. What need does an executive with plenary powers have for a deliberative body?
The Left likes dictators
They have their deliberative body. It’s called the Cabinet, and it’s chock-full of sycophants.
Hasn’t the whole pack the court thing been tried?
I’m not college educated and all, but isn’t amending The Constitution difficult?
Something about the states getting involved, or 2/3ds of both houses of the legislature?
Why is it one side is only interested in The Constitution when their intention is to break it apart?
ULT74,
The Constitution is difficult to amend by intentional design.
That said, the Constitution is silent on the number of Justices on SCOTUS. No amendment needed, just a President willing to do it + a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
If the executive branch begins to ignore court opinion it does not like, will the courts serve any purpose? Executive-approved rulings will be followed, objectionable rulings will be ignored. In such a situation, federal courts aren’t necessary at all! The executive will have effectively neutered and abolished the federal courts as a “check and balance,” making it unnecessary for the courts to take up controversies involving the Constitution’s relevance with regard to executive power. Why bother if the executive will only disregard opinions adverse to its agenda?
Congress take heed. The executive will likewise be unshackled from any respect due that body. If a president can ignore the courts, he can likewise ignore Congress. It will be all fun and games for the Dems, until a Trump is elected president. By then, it will be too late, the executive will have already secured complete dominance.
“If the executive branch begins to ignore court opinion it does not like, will the courts serve any purpose?” Yes, keep the unwashed in a state of obedience
A President can ignore the courts and Congress. It really is just a matter of technical means. As long as the Treasury can still spend money, and the Executive can punish people directly through agency actions, they don’t need courts at all. The IRS can levy fines directly and simply subtract the money from bank accounts. And this is why a CBDC is so dangerous. It puts all money under direct control of the Executive Branch, who can add and subtract from anyone’s account at will.
Kamala Harris says that Supreme Court opinions are not binding because they are only just opinions.
There is a point there. Supreme Court opinions are NOT in the list constituting the supreme law of the land.
“…because they are only just opinions.” That is true. The force behind those opinions is federal money which the states perennially suckle in their vain attempt to slake their thirst for ever more $$$.
You don’t say… a bit of good news, I can only imagine the emails!
61 Donna Hansbrough, the 68-year-old Lowes employee who was fired for violating the company’s policy on stopping the theft of merchandise was reinstated earlier today.
“After senior management became aware of the incident”
The same people who fired her are going to pretend they didn’t know and because of the public backlash will hire her back. If she goes back they will make her want to quit.
Or, they’re thumbing their nose at their insurers.
“You told us we had to fire her. Nothing said we can’t re-hire her.”
Which is exactly the path I suggested they take. Satisfy the lawyers and the insurance co by ‘firing’ her then hire her back.
Somebody prosecutes them, is what happens.
which, “somebody” did you have in mind?
It was Democratic Party President Andrew Jackson who taunted that Chief Justice John Marshall had no means to enforce the Court’s decision.
The Democrats squeal about “conspiracy theories” and then proceed to enact them exactly as the “conspiracy theorists” warned.
And then go on television and wail “why don’t people trust us?”
Power is all some people see.
About 15 years ago, IPWatchdog a website about patent law, was advocating for the DC Court of Appeals ( the court that hears all patent appeals ). that the DC Court should just ignore SCOTUS rulings. That was when SCOTUS was reigning in patent law.
About six months later Judge Radar who was chief judge got involved in a scandal and was removed. After that it seemed the DC Court fell in line.
I think they are already
Why is this considered anything new?
The court upholds or overturns laws challenged by the fed or states. The body of immigration law has been ignored by the administration since day 1. Those laws were affirmed by the court, either by finding in support of those laws, or, remaining silent on those that haven’t been challenged.
Didn’t Obummer ignore DOMA for the duration? At least he made a show of support for the court by bringing suit. Still, that ugly period of lawlessness from day 1 until the court found for the admin.
The difference, I guess, is they won’t even bring suit to challenge the law(s) they dislike, thereby showing contempt for the court?
Seems like it’s time for some conservative thought leaders to the heads of military and state police, concerning the proper use of force to elicit conformance/compliance with the constitution and the body of laws enacted by the people’s representatives. Specifically, what it means to “protect and defend the Constitution of the US” – an oath most of them made upon taking office. To “protect and defend” isn’t a passive, it’s active. Not sure I’ve seen any active protecting and defending domestically, in particular against government outlaws.
The Silly Supreme Court actually thinking that they matter under Dem control. As was commented above, the only power SCOTUS has is derived from the People and not The Party. Of course, many Dems don’t realize that in the quest for one party rule, they as individuals are will be expendable. The Left always talks of minority rights,…. but the individual is the true minority in the face of one party totalitarian rule.
Something like this happened a long time ago in our history.
President Andrew Jackson is alleged to have made this statement to the U.S. Supreme Court: “(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
The case revolved around Georgia’s attempt to apply state laws to Cherokee lands. The Court had ruled against Georgia’s authority to do so and Jackson, who was dedicated to Indian removal, allegedly challenged Marshall to come down to Georgia and try to enforce his decision.
That case proved that if 2 branches gang up, they can override the other one. Congress passed the Indian Removal Act and backed up Jackson.
That was a couple of centuries ago, when people still thought that Congress still mattered. Ruling by decree is now the order of the day and has been for some time. Congress’s role for decades has been to hand over more and more of their own power to the Executive Branch.
Along with more and more tax dollars.
Money talks, bullshït walks.
My concern is that if we approve of President Jackson’s decision to defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion over a hundred years ago, because we believe he was right to remove Indian tribes from Georgia, and we all consider that a good thing, that we must then approve of President Biden’s decision to defy the Supreme Court’s decisions today. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If we support President Jackson’s refusal to obey that Supreme Court opinion in the past, then how can we disapprove of Biden’s likewise decision to defy the Supreme Court’s opinion on issues today?
It’s time to start taking out these Communists, and I don’t mean “to dinner”.
so, who’s stopping you?
I thought they already had with things like sanctuary cities, open borders, and the like.
“In one of the most chilling developments in our history, the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists…”
That is in keeping with being Democrat since they are the ones who used that language.
Hrm, sounds insurrectiony …
Actually, it sounds like a … “legal insurrection.”
“In one of the most chilling developments in our history, the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists”
“Come to”? It is their native tongue. They ARE the authoritarians. They ARE the segregationists.
And always have been.
Short Answer: Civil War II comes.
See you on the barricades.
Tushnet and Belkin’s first mistake is assuming their proposal wouldn’t start a civil war. Their second mistake is assuming they’d survive that civil war.
“the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists”
“Come to?” The Democrats WERE those original segregationists.
“courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning. In practice, a President who disagrees with a court’s interpretation of the Constitution should offer and then follow an alternative interpretation.”
Again, not novel. The first Democrat president, Jackson:
“Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.”
But then again, Jefferson expressed the same opinion more than once:
“My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.”
“You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence… But the executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it; because that power is confided to them by the Constitution.”
So how does the Supreme Court enforce its interpretation of the laws when the Executive Branch won’t? Well, that’s why the Militia was put in sole authority to enforce the laws of the federal government — the Militia is the whole of the people, and they will not willingly cut their own throats.
The courts are just a plaything of the wealthy and the powerful anyway. No-one without huge resources has standing in any court.
The press (however constituted) has the real power now and as long as the press is as corrupt as it is the people have no protection. If the press doesn’t mind, presidents can do anything (with their phones and their pens).
A professor of law at Harvard Law School who advocates defying Supreme Court decisions the left doesn’t like will never again have to buy a drink in Cambridge. In a sane world the dean of the law school would have a full and frank discussion of the issues with the professor, who would then write a thoughtful retraction. Of course the dean lacks the courage to do so. Drink up, professor.
Democrats only respect the court when they control it. If they don’t they resort to 2 options, find a court that will change the ruling, i.e. a court they control, or delegitimize the court.
If the Republicans don’t get off their ass and start doing something about this stuff, the Democrats will continue to win elections and thwart solutions. It’s always Democrats that disregard the law.
Tushnet and Belkin are indeed the George Wallaces of the left
George Wallace was the George Wallace of the left.
Too many people forget that.
“ For months now, various Democrats and their media allies have repeatedly been trying to delegitimize the U.S. Supreme Court openly on television and social media.”
Sounds like illegal insurrection to me: they’re advocating the overthrow of at least 1/3 of the government. Why aren’t these people behind bars yet?
In recent times, this problem seems to have begun when a former president announced that “I have a pen and a phone, and I don;’t need Congress to do what I want to do.” So much for the separation of powers so carefully designed in our Constitution. And Congress has unfortunately abdicated much of its responsibility to represent its constituents and attempt to exert its constitutional authority to make laws.
Looking ahead, this new legal “theory” of blatantly ignoring court decisions does not bode well for the US and the entire world. The US is the oldest constitutional republic (or democracy, depending on the semantics one chooses), and many other countries have adopted the notion of written constitutions that define their laws and lives.
This new defiance of the US Constitution is frightening, and may portend the collapse of 18th century liberal Enlightenment thinking that has served the world well. Not a pretty picture as the world may descend into another Dark Ages.
This sounds like an illegal insurrection
Throughout our nation’s history, we’ve had periods where we had a truly activist Supreme Court. Those periods have ALWAYS been periods of left wing activism. The “switch-in-time-saves-nine-Court” that acquiesced to Presidential threats to destroy the Court and led directly to unprecedented Federal intrusions on Americans’ liberty that persist and deform our constitutional republic today; the Warren Court and their radically progressive view of criminal procedure that continues to wreak havoc and makes American cities ungovernable and unsafe.
The Left has ALWAYS assumed there would never be an activist court that pulled America back to a more Constitutionally correct, truly federalist (small “f”) foundation. We still haven’t had such a period of restorationist activism, yet. But we’re starting to see glimmers of hope that the foundation for that restoration has been laid down by Thomas’ jurisprudence over the last 30 years.
The Left would LOSE whatever remains of their sanity if we ever had a period of “restorationist activism” comparable to the leftwing judicial activism we’ve seen in the past.
Biden and his cronies just did this by passing over Pacific Fleet Commander, a white man but with current expertise confronting the China threat, to lead the U.S. Navy, in favor of a woman currently serving in the Pentagon! Time to sue!
As a question for Professor Jacobson and others:
“In a country where Marbury v. Madison is functionally moot because only the Executive can decide what is the law in any particular case that they take an interest in; what is the purpose of courts, lawyers, and law schools?”
Second question:
“If in fact the Constitution is whatever those in power say it is at any given moment in any given case, what is the purpose and force of oaths to the Constitution?”
Subotai Bahadur
The day will soon come when the criminal syndicate masquerading as the Democratic Party will regret their destruction of the Rule of Law and the Constitution. There will be nothing to protect the vermin from annihilation.
In Israel, the Left opposes the Supreme Court “reforms” being pushed by the Right wing government. In the U.S., the opposite is the case. Here, the Left is advocating in favor of “reforms” to the supposed Right wing Supreme Court. I guess, it all amounts to whose ox is being gored.