By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview, Rep. Jamie Raskin discussed the Supreme Court’s current conservative alignment and its perceived efforts to accommodate Donald Trump. The conversation focused on the implications of the court’s rulings on nationwide injunctions, particularly the potential for widespread confusion if unconstitutional orders cannot be blocked on a national level. Raskin emphasized the need for these injunctions, highlighting the risk of legal chaos and the potential for lasting damage. The discussion underscored the critical role the Supreme Court plays in upholding the law and the potential consequences of its decisions.
Read the original article here
Raskin: ‘Trumpified’ Supreme Court conservatives invite chaos with incoherent rulings
The Supreme Court, increasingly shaped by Donald Trump’s appointments, is facing scrutiny, with many arguing that the current court’s rulings are not only ideologically driven but also lack a coherent legal foundation, leading to a chaotic legal landscape. The dismissive response of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in a recent birthright citizenship case is a prime example of what some consider arrogance and a personal attack, rather than a substantive legal argument. This sort of behavior, where personal opinions seem to take precedence over established legal principles, has raised concerns about the court’s impartiality and the integrity of its decisions.
The term “Trumpified” seems apt, as it encapsulates the perceived shift towards a court that seems to prioritize political outcomes over adherence to legal precedent. The concern here is that the court is actively undermining the Bill of Rights. This isn’t just about differing legal interpretations; it’s about what many see as a deliberate dismantling of fundamental rights. A consequence of this is the erosion of checks and balances, particularly the Judiciary’s role in keeping the executive in check, and the perception of the court abdicating judicial power to the executive branch.
The critiques extend beyond individual rulings, touching upon the very nature of the court’s approach to its role. There’s the argument that the court’s decisions are predetermined, shaped by political motivations rather than objective legal analysis. The actual reasoning behind these decisions is viewed as “incoherent,” a sort of intellectual gymnastics designed to justify preordained conclusions. This leads to the conclusion that the lack of consistency creates legal uncertainty, and opens the door to the executive branch’s abuse of power.
Some fear the consequence of an “imperial executive.” If the judiciary isn’t a check on the executive branch, then there is no final arbiter. The executive becomes king, and whatever the executive decides, goes. There are real fears of the court greenlighting Trump’s actions, making it nearly impossible to challenge his decisions. This would also include an increased risk of a future president who could consolidate power further without any interference. This would result in the creation of an environment that moves quickly toward dictatorship.
There’s a sense of urgency, with the feeling that the midterms, and subsequent elections, could be compromised. The ability of the court to act as a check on this sort of overreach is compromised. The fear of election manipulation, coupled with the perception of a weakened judiciary, creates a dangerous situation. The existing laws may no longer apply to everyone equally.
The potential fallout from a weakened or compromised judicial system is the subject of intense debate. The current state of affairs may lead to an erosion of public trust in institutions. A feeling that the existing political system is broken and that people will eventually feel justified in using force to resist what they perceive as a power grab. This type of societal breakdown is something most fear.
The path forward appears uncertain. The lack of hope is palpable. The idea of large protests and general strikes being met with authoritarian responses further exacerbates the concerns. The Supreme Court’s trajectory, coupled with the perceived weakness of Democratic opposition, leads to a sense that democratic principles and constitutional rights are under serious threat. The perception of a rigged election, coupled with a compromised judiciary, only adds to the anxiety. It is clear the Trumpified Supreme Court is not just a legal concern but a threat to the very fabric of American democracy.