By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing Alabama to proceed with a racially discriminatory congressional map has severely undermined its legitimacy. This ruling, made with no time for election officials to prepare, follows a pattern of decisions that make challenging racial vote dilution nearly impossible. By invoking the “Purcell principle” selectively and allowing states to disregard election timelines, the court has signaled a willingness to manipulate rules to favor Republican interests, effectively nullifying civil rights advancements.
Read the original article here
It’s a tough conversation to have, but the idea that the Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy is something that’s clearly on a lot of people’s minds. When you look at how decisions are being made, particularly through avenues like the “shadow docket,” it starts to feel intentionally opaque. This isn’t just about disagreement with rulings; it’s about a sense that these decisions are being made without the usual transparency and accountability we expect from a judicial body. The concern is that this lack of clear process allows for undue influence from special interests or partisan biases, eroding public trust.
There’s a strong sentiment that the Court has, for some time now, been operating more like a “banana court” than a bastion of justice. The argument is that certain actors within the Court are not acting in the best interest of the general citizenry, but rather seem beholden to a select few, often described as “oligarchs.” This perception of being disconnected from the needs and will of the people leads to the conclusion that the Court, in its current form, lacks genuine legitimacy.
The year 2000 is frequently cited as a pivotal moment when this perceived loss of legitimacy began to take hold. The decision in that election, which ultimately determined the presidency without a complete, undisputed vote count, is seen by many as the day democracy itself took a significant hit. The feeling is that this moment marked a turning point, and that the subsequent actions of the Court have only served to illustrate this ongoing decline, leading to what some describe as the “death spasms” of a democratic system.
A significant factor contributing to this crisis of legitimacy is the perceived overwhelming influence of corporate money in shaping all branches of government. When corporations can pour limitless funds into influencing elections, judicial appointments, and even the media and educational systems, it’s only natural that the judiciary might begin to prioritize corporate interests over the public good. This pervasive financial influence, proponents of this view argue, makes the Supreme Court “supremely illegitimate.”
Beyond a question of legitimacy, many feel the Supreme Court is actively corrupt and even “evil.” This perspective suggests that the Court is not merely making questionable decisions, but is actively protecting its own corruption, including alleged bribes and abuses of power. The term “illegitimate” is seen as too mild by some, as it implies a sort of lawful, albeit flawed, operation. Instead, they argue, the Court is acting outside the bounds of what any legitimate court has historically stood for, effectively becoming usurpers and traitors to the very principles they are meant to uphold.
The feeling of a broken system extends beyond the Supreme Court, with some extending this critique to Congress and the White House as well. This broad-ranging disillusionment paints a picture of a nation where multiple pillars of government are seen as having failed. The result is a deep-seated refusal to consider the Supreme Court legitimate in its current form, leading to a vow to protest and legally challenge their rulings whenever possible, indicating a determination to fight back against decisions that are perceived as unjust.
The core of the argument against the Court’s legitimacy often boils down to a simple question: why should we listen to an institution that has no enforcement power and is seen as lacking integrity? The idea is that if the Court’s authority is rooted in public trust and adherence to democratic principles, and that trust is broken, then its pronouncements lose their binding force. Some even suggest that if the legislative branch were to retake control, strong measures, including the arrest of justices for alleged fraud, could be warranted.
The partisan nature of judicial appointments is another recurring theme. The frustration over blocked nominations, particularly the contentious confirmation of conservative justices, fuels the belief that political maneuvering has supplanted genuine judicial merit. The observation that politically appointing judges is a fundamentally flawed approach is made, with some expressing surprise that this obvious issue is even a subject of discussion, implying it has been evident for a considerable time.
This sense of deep-seated dysfunction has led to calls for radical action. There are suggestions that the next Democratic administration should pursue the arrest of conservative justices, citing a general disregard for laws as justification. The notion that laws no longer matter is a stark indicator of the level of disillusionment with the current state of the judiciary and the broader legal system.
Chief Justice John Roberts is often singled out, with the assertion that he “imagines himself as a politician.” This perception, stated as a “fact,” suggests that his actions are driven by political considerations rather than legal principles. The widespread agreement and lack of further comment on this point indicate a strong consensus that Roberts’ role is seen as deeply politicized.
The idea that the Supreme Court’s rulings are now simply a matter of what is politically advantageous for Republicans at any given moment is a direct indictment of its impartiality. The comment “You’re just noticing now?” implies that this politicization has been a long-standing issue, and the Court’s actions are now so blatant that it’s almost obvious. This makes the institution seem less like a legal authority and more like a political actor.
The Court’s actions are described as actively “destroying the reputation of their institution with alacrity.” This suggests a self-destructive path, where the pursuit of partisan goals is leading to the rapid erosion of its own standing. The contrast with past “bad courts” highlights the perceived severity of the current situation, with this Court seen as re-inventing the very meaning of a biased court.
There’s a profound disconnect perceived between the Court and the reality of citizens’ lives, particularly regarding their ability to seek redress against the government. When the Court’s decisions effectively shut down avenues for legal action, while simultaneously claiming the nation operates under the rule of law, it creates a jarring dissonance. This leads to the urgent call for people to “wake up” to this reality.
The frustration culminates in the observation that while people may be celebrating certain outcomes, such as gun bans, the underlying systemic issues remain unaddressed. This leads to a bleak outlook, where the country is seen as “a joke” and “getting what it deserves.” The hope is that a collective realization of these problems will occur before it’s too late, but the current trajectory is viewed with deep concern.
However, there is a counter-argument that presents a more nuanced view. While acknowledging that the current Supreme Court is making “terrible decisions,” this perspective maintains that the Court itself is legitimate. The argument is that the “illegitimacy” lies not with the Court’s adherence to legal processes, but with the outcomes of elections that have led to the current composition of the Senate and the Presidency. In this view, “illegitimate” means lacking legal authorization, and the Court’s appointments and rulings are currently in accordance with the Constitution. Therefore, the solution proposed is to “do better at the ballot box.”
This perspective also points out that if a former president, like Trump, does not respect the Constitution, then there’s less reason for Democrats to respect the Supreme Court’s rulings. This implies a tit-for-tat logic, where a perceived lack of respect for foundational principles by one side justifies a similar disregard by the other. The critique is also leveled at Democrats, suggesting they missed an opportunity to prevent the current situation by failing to win elections, and thus leaving the country vulnerable to “Republican corruption.”
A critical perspective on the solutions proposed to address the Court’s perceived illegitimacy is also present. The idea that Democrats’ solutions involve making the Court “even more illegitimate” is a concern. The argument is that while something may be broken, it doesn’t justify further breaking it. The suggestion that justices might trade their robes for more sinister symbols reflects the deep disapproval of the Court’s current direction.
A significant point of contention is the Court’s practice of issuing unsigned orders and settling cases without transparent individual opinions. For decisions that are legally binding, the demand is for complete transparency, including not only the ruling itself but also the votes and individual opinions of the justices. This is seen as essential for establishing precedent and providing context for lower courts and legislators, upholding the principle of complete written records in all governmental actions.
The perceived bias extends to specific rulings that are seen as designed to benefit certain political figures without establishing binding precedent for the future. The blocking of Obama’s Supreme Court nomination by Mitch McConnell is recalled as a pivotal moment that, in retrospect, sealed the fate of the Court’s perceived integrity. The subsequent appointment of justices seen as “syphcophants” and the association of some with controversial figures further fuels the belief that the Court is no longer acting impartially.
The actions of the conservative justices are seen as a betrayal of democratic principles, particularly in their perceived alignment with Donald Trump. This is not seen as mere partisanship, but as a fundamental undermining of American democracy. The inability to stay silent in the face of such perceived transgressions is a powerful driver of the calls for change.
The issue of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is frequently raised in relation to rulings that appear to selectively apply legal principles. The example of local election standards being deemed a violation of this clause, while later ignoring its application to protect minority voting rights, highlights a perceived intellectual dishonesty. The argument is that these justices are acting as “intellectually dishonest political agents” who lack the courage to defend their partisan decisions openly.
The phrase “illegitimate does not begin to describe the Roberts court” powerfully conveys the depth of this sentiment. The explanation that the Court’s actions were part of a deliberate plan to “steal the election” points to a belief in a coordinated effort to manipulate the political landscape. The partisan nature of these decisions, where every justice voting for a particular outcome was appointed by a Republican, further solidifies this perception.
The deliberate refusal to allow certain decisions to set precedent is seen as a calculated maneuver to prevent future Democratic control of the Court from overturning them. This is described as a “coordinated ratfuck,” highlighting the aggressive and manipulative tactics believed to be at play. The fact that these decisions were issued rapidly and without establishing precedent is viewed as a perversion of the Court’s fundamental purpose.
The argument that attributing the current situation solely to the “southern strategy, Nixon and Reagan” is a simplistic view is made. The claim that the Bush v. Gore decision was not “untoward” because of how ballots were counted is presented as misinformation intended for political purposes. This suggests a desire to focus on the present perceived illegitimacy without fully acknowledging the historical roots of the problem.
Finally, the question of what can be done about this perceived illegitimacy is raised, implying a search for solutions. The idea of the President, as part of his official duties, “cutting short the lifetime appointments of several sitting Justices” is a radical proposal that reflects the extreme frustration and a desire for decisive action. This reflects a belief that if the Court operates above the law, then extraordinary measures might be necessary to address its perceived transgressions.