By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal immigration case, *J.G.G. v. Trump*, has brought to light serious concerns about the integrity of the judiciary, prompting Delaware attorney Meghan Kelly to file a motion outlining alleged systemic threats to judicial independence. Kelly argues that judges, including those on the Supreme Court, may be facing improper political pressure, potentially undermining due-process rights for detained immigrants. Her motion claims the courts must be protected from executive and legislative branch influence, including potential threats or retaliation stemming from cases involving Donald Trump. Ultimately, the court must decide whether to accept Kelly’s amicus brief, which could broaden the scope of the case and its implications.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court rulings may be ‘based on threats’ to justices—Court papers. This is a chilling possibility, isn’t it? The very foundation of our justice system, the independence of the Supreme Court, is potentially under siege. Imagine a scenario where rulings aren’t based on law and precedent, but on fear. It fundamentally undermines the trust we place in the court and, by extension, in our entire democratic process.
If such pressures exist, it suggests a profound weakness in the system. The idea that justices are swayed by threats, political pressure, or even the allure of bribes calls into question the integrity of the institution. This isn’t just about a few individual rulings; it’s about the very concept of justice. Are we to believe that the highest court in the land is vulnerable to intimidation, making it susceptible to the whims of those who wield power through fear or financial influence? If so, the consequences could be devastating.
The implications are far-reaching. Detained immigrants’ due-process rights, the neutrality of the courts, and the public’s perception of the judiciary could all be compromised. It’s a frightening thought that those tasked with upholding the Constitution might be making decisions based on self-preservation or external influence rather than on the merits of the law. This raises the question of whether our legal system is truly impartial or has become yet another tool in a relentless power struggle.
Of course, the existence of threats, whether they are actual or perceived, is a serious matter. We’re talking about the potential for organized intimidation, perhaps even involving foreign agents or those with political agendas. The fact that various individuals, including elected officials and judges, are reportedly receiving threats only reinforces the sense of a climate of fear. This could lead to a situation where the courts are no longer perceived as independent arbiters but as targets in a broader political war.
This is a crisis of confidence. If the public loses faith in the Supreme Court, it undermines the legitimacy of all its decisions. Any ruling could be questioned, setting the stage for political chaos and instability. This lack of faith would seep into all corners of the system and, eventually, society at large.
The idea that the highest court’s decisions could be influenced by external pressures is not only alarming, it creates a crisis that could destroy the whole idea of an independent and fair judiciary. The perception of corruption, even if it’s not provable, erodes public trust and gives rise to cynicism.
It is worth asking whether this is something organized. It makes you wonder who would benefit from a weakened judiciary and who might be behind such actions. If there are bad actors, and we may never know, their actions undermine the foundations of our democracy.
There is a discussion of the role of political influence, like the way the Federalist judges have been installed. They are now placed into positions for the sole purpose of political gain. If this continues it is possible that the role of business interests in the Federal judiciary will continue to influence decisions.
We may have a situation where the court is making decisions based on fear and/or bribes. This is a very serious concern. If this is true it is important that all such decisions should be reviewed and dismissed. If the court’s rulings are influenced by the threat of violence or corruption, how can we expect to have a fair judicial process?
It is easy to imagine a scenario where the threats come from a variety of sources. Right-wing men and women and foreign agents are discussed. The discussion is of such a broad nature that all the blame is in the court of public opinion.
There is the feeling that this is being ignored and those leading the FBI and CIA are impeding investigation. There is an idea that this is a precursor for a totalitarian state.
There is a call for a thorough investigation of these alleged threats, and if proven, the perpetrators should be brought to justice. Laws must be put in place to safeguard our society from this weakness.
It is of crucial importance that the justices prioritize justice. It is their responsibility to serve the needs of the Republic and the people. If they are not ready to put justice first, they should consider leaving their position.
If democracy is going to be saved, it is necessary to fight for freedom. There is a sense that the youth of today have a monumental task in the future to fix this country. It will take generations to fix the current crisis.