By Matt Underwood Former Supreme Court Justice Kennedy says “democracy is at risk,” and the immediate reaction is, well, a mix of incredulity and anger. It’s hard to ignore the fact that this declaration comes from a man whose decisions and timing arguably played a significant role in the current state of affairs. The sentiment, echoed repeatedly, is one of “you built this,” followed by a demand for accountability. It’s like someone who lit a fire then warns you about the smoke.
The core of the discontent seems to revolve around a few key actions, most prominently, the Citizens United decision. This ruling, allowing unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns, is seen by many as a direct blow to the integrity of elections and the influence of ordinary citizens. It’s hard to argue with that. Then there’s the timing of his retirement, which created the opportunity for Donald Trump to appoint a conservative justice, solidifying a conservative majority on the court. This decision is seen as the defining moment, and his departure is now seen as less about personal convenience and more about handing the keys to a party that would undermine the foundation of democracy.
Many people are left wondering about the motivation behind this late-stage warning. Why now? What’s the purpose of pointing out a danger that was, in some ways, created by decisions made during his tenure? It’s hard not to see it as a case of someone finally acknowledging the consequences of their actions, perhaps after a lifetime of being blind to them. Perhaps he’s just noticing now. Or, perhaps there are ulterior motives, like a belated concern for the future legacy.
The criticisms extend beyond just the rulings. The anger seems to be fueled by a sense of betrayal. There’s the suspicion that powerful figures, like Kennedy, were insulated from the consequences of their decisions while in office. They get to enjoy the perks of their position until they retire. Only then, freed from the constraints of their roles, can they suddenly see the damage they helped inflict. People’s perception is that this is an incredibly convenient form of enlightenment.
Then there is the insinuation of quid pro quo. The fact that Kennedy’s son had connections with Deutsche Bank, which, in turn, was heavily involved in loaning money to Donald Trump, further fuels the flames of distrust. It’s impossible to completely ignore the idea that the timing of his retirement was anything but a coincidence, a calculated move to ensure the right-wing takeover of the court. The perception is that personal gain was put before the health of democracy.
The core issue is trust. How can we trust someone who, despite their decisions, is now claiming to be concerned about the future of democracy? Many feel that if he had stepped down at a different time, the whole future of the court could have been different. Had he made a different choice, it could have been a pivotal moment that safeguarded democracy from some of the harm it faces now.
The focus of the anger often centers on the notion of responsibility. People feel like it is a little too late for warnings. Many feel the time for warnings has passed. The time for action was during his time, when he made the decisions that brought us to where we are. His legacy is now forever intertwined with the current state of affairs.
In essence, Kennedy’s statement is met with a resounding “you helped create the problem.” This reaction underlines the deep sense of betrayal and frustration felt by many Americans who believe that the very foundations of democracy are under siege. The warning, however belated, is perceived as hollow. The question remains: is this a genuine concern, or just an acknowledgment of a self-inflicted wound?