The Supreme Court Justices have shamelessly abused their authority, trampling over the Executive and Legislative branches without a second thought. The Supreme Court has deemed itself by itself (and I do mean itself) as the final arbiter of justice in the United States. Tasked with upholding the Constitution and interpreting the law to maintain fairness in the determination and application of the law, over the course of its existence, signs of abuse of power have been revealed through an increasingly thinner veil. Conversely, their attempts to conceal the abuses have gone from subtle reinterpretations of text to blatant manipulation of constitutional law. During this period, the Court has slowly gathered more power and less reliance on the other branches. Whereas the three branches of government formerly co-existed under the pretenses of checks and balances, the Supreme Court now exerts its independence under the pretense of separation of powers.
Let’s start with the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. That is when the Court decided it had the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. By doing this, they unilaterally determined they had the ability to usurp responsibilities designated to the Legislative branch. The evidence of abuse has moved far beyond subjective opinions into objective observations. Judicial review is an important power of the system of checks and balances, but now the court has decided that they have the privilege of correcting the law in addition to interpreting it. Throughout history, citizens have always been leery of abuse from the executive and its enforcers, leading to the adage of “Who watches the watchers?” The judiciary system has hit us completely from behind. Now it’s “Who judges the judges?”
The Supreme Court has shown a willingness to engage in judicial activism based on their personal beliefs and the current composition of the Court. The famous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, which legalized abortion nationwide, and the recent Dobbs decision in 2021, which overturned long-standing precedent on abortion rights, both exemplify this trend. These decisions demonstrate that the Court is willing to push their own beliefs onto the American people, regardless of precedent or constitutional interpretation. With the current composition of the Court, which may lean toward more conservative ideologies, the likelihood of further instances of judicial activism based on personal beliefs is a significant concern. This kind of overreach undermines the authority of the Executive and Legislative branches, who are supposed to represent the will of the people and raises questions about the balance of power within the government.
In addition to judicial activism, the Supreme Court Justices have made extremely partisan decisions. The following decisions are just three examples where the Supreme Court has blatantly undermined United States democracy:
The Legislature’s balance over the Judiciary is to amend the Constitution in order to modernize or even correct portions of the Constitution. The process of amending the Constitution requires the approval of a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, after which the approval of three-fourths of the states is required to ratify the amendment. This is not a trivial procedure. Somewhere along the way, the Supreme Court decided they had the authority to reinterpret the language of amendments regardless of how recent. Worse, they decide the procedure for enacting a presumably self-enacting law or policy. But clearly the most presumptuous decision is to decide that an Act is “No longer necessary.” In order to pass a law such as the “Voting Rights Act” of 1965.
| Yea | Nay | |
|---|---|---|
| House of Representatives |
333 | 85 |
| Senate | 77 | 19 |
| President | 1 |
So, there you have it: 411 elected officials voted in favor of the “Voting Rights Act” of 1965, but for some reason, 5 unelected officials felt entitled to unilaterally remove Section 4(b) of the Act because they deemed it unnecessary in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013.
I have some hastily and not fully thought out mitigating measures for the Court’s rampant abuse
- Enact term limits for the position of Supreme Court Justice. I would recommend the longest term of any other federal elected official.
- Enable other Supreme Court Justices or an alternative party to require a compromised Supreme Court Justice to step down.
- Increase transparency in the Supreme Court’s decision-making process:
- Releasing audio recordings of oral arguments.
- Providing more detailed explanations for rulings: The Supreme Court is not a fact-finding body. Force them to explain how they came to their conclusions with the facts presented to them.
- Strengthen checks and balances on the Supreme Court’s power:
- Empowering Congress: Vote to prevent a case from rising to the level of the Supreme Court.
- Empowering the Executive: DOJ ensures legal prosecutions operate on a path that doesn’t end at the Supreme Court; maybe empanel a traditional jury?
The President and Congress are enablers of this problem. The Supreme Court only has the power that it is given, and it is inherently given none. The Executive and the Congress need to cease using the Court as the ultimate arbiter and exercise their own power and authority. In the 2022 case of the unlawfully retained documents at Mar-a-Lago, the Department of Justice never entertained the equitable jurisdiction claimed by Justice Aileen Cannon. After the granting of the search warrant, the evidence was in the hands of the Executive. Any judicial disputes should have been handled within their system, before interfering with the DOJ. As President, I would have instructed the DOJ to continue their process and make the Judiciary prove that it had a right to interrupt a normal search and seizure process, not the other way around. In 2024, as the state court of Colorado, I would have left Donald Trump’s name off the ballot until all other disputes were resolved. Alabama has a habit of outwaiting the Supreme Court to the point where it’s too late to modify the districts in time for the current election. Somehow, a similar situation may have happened in my state as well.
Furthermore, the House shouldn’t be waiting past the first request for any member of the Court to appear. The President would appear if summoned. If there was continued refusal, I would have the sergeant-at-arms go to the Courts with anything or anyone required and tell the Justices to hike up their robes because they’re going to be taking a walk. Equally, as President, I wouldn’t be suing Texas over any border disagreements; there would be military closing in from North, East, and West. By leaving every decision up to the courts, they are increasing judicial power while ceding their own. I argue that the Executive and Legislature should do what they feel is in their purview and let the Judiciary explain why it’s not.
They have to go. I cannot be unconvinced at this point that the Supreme Court Justices have overreached whatever their intended purpose is. They repeatedly abuse their authority. The Courts disregard the authority of the other branches of government by claiming “Separate but Equal branches” but claim “Checks and Balances” when they need to be obeyed. The members may only be voluntarily recused from a case. They are unable to force out a fellow justice who may be undoubtedly compromised in the case in front of them. So, even they are not able to ensure that there is not self-interest, personal or political influence involved in their determinations of the law. The bench legislation of unelected officials who have no fear of job termination is eroding our system of checks and balances, which are meant to protect our rights and civil liberties. As it stands, they are accountable to no one. Failure to change this will result in a government where the rule of law is replaced by the rule of a few unelected judges, putting our democracy at risk. The time to act is now before it is too late. I’ll say it again.
They have to go.
► Citizen Mooney