By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court heard arguments challenging Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, and the justices expressed significant skepticism towards the administration’s arguments. Conservative justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, questioned the scope of the president’s authority in this context, particularly concerning the power of Congress over tariffs. This potential ruling could be a major check on the Trump administration’s policies, especially considering the court has previously accommodated his policies. Two possible explanations for this potential shift include a wariness of presidential interference in the economy and a desire to preserve the major questions doctrine for future use, possibly against future Democratic administrations. This may also be the Court attempting to preserve their legitimacy.
Read the original article here
Does The Supreme Court Finally Realize It’s Losing Legitimacy?
The answer, it seems, is less about “losing” and more about having already lost. The consensus appears to be that the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is not just on shaky ground; it’s already crumbled. There’s a prevailing sentiment that this decline has been ongoing for some time, with many pointing to the *Citizens United* decision in 2010 as a pivotal moment. Some even trace the damage further back, suggesting it started with decisions surrounding the 2000 presidential election.
The core of the problem lies in the perception of corruption and blatant disregard for ethical standards. Numerous allegations of bribery, undisclosed gifts, and conflicts of interest have plagued the court, eroding public trust. Many feel the justices are not just failing to uphold ethical standards but actively resisting any attempts to implement them. This, combined with what is seen as a consistent pattern of contorting legal logic to achieve desired partisan outcomes, has painted a picture of a court more focused on political agendas than on the impartial application of the law.
The actions of the current court have been perceived as actively destroying their credibility. The list of offenses is extensive, from allowing numerous bribery scandals to actively resisting the implementation of any ethical constraints. They are seen as shifting legal philosophies to serve desired outcomes and trashing decades of precedent based on weak rationales to achieve those outcomes. Furthermore, some feel the court is enabling a president immune from accountability. The court’s perceived role in the 2024 election and its stance on issues such as presidential immunity has only deepened the divide.
The Supreme Court isn’t just “losing” legitimacy; it has, in the eyes of many, already forfeited it. The perception is that the court is making bank from Republican bribes, making them useless to the people. The view is that they no longer have any checks on the executive branch by giving them immunity. Many feel that the current court is the worst in American history, even more so than the Taney court, which had the Dred Scott decision.
There is a sense that the current justices simply don’t care about public perception or the law’s application. The court’s decisions are seen as aligned with a particular political agenda. There’s a clear divide between the justices. The court’s perceived legitimacy starts and falls with the appointment of the judges. This perception is exacerbated by the appointments of justices considered to be highly partisan and ideologically driven. The belief is that their decisions are not based on legal reasoning but on a pre-determined political stance.
The perceived motivations behind these actions are varied. Some see the court as afraid of Donald Trump, twisting themselves into knots to avoid his wrath. Others believe that the court is simply prioritizing the interests of the powerful and wealthy. The court, to a large extent, has been viewed as a rubber stamp for the whims of a particular political faction, undermining its ability to act as a neutral arbiter of justice.
The hope for the court to regain legitimacy is bleak. Some believe that the situation is irredeemable without constitutional reforms. Others suggest impeachment and the prosecution of justices for corruption might be a starting point. There’s a strong sentiment that the court’s actions have fundamentally altered the balance of power, rendering it ineffective in its intended role.