By Matt Underwood The idea that four Supreme Court justices should face impeachment over the issue of birthright citizenship is a deeply contentious one, rooted in a strong interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of this argument is the belief that the Constitution unequivocally states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The very notion that the Court might have been a single vote away from overturning such a fundamental right, a right seemingly guaranteed by the nation’s highest law, is seen as profoundly alarming by proponents of impeachment. They argue that justices who would entertain such a reversal demonstrate a clear lack of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law itself.
This perspective suggests that these justices, in considering a departure from established birthright citizenship, are not engaging in legitimate legal interpretation but are instead twisting and manipulating the law to align with what are perceived as undesirable, even “fascist,” ideologies. The concern is that their rulings are not guided by a genuine commitment to constitutional principles but by a political agenda, leading them to disregard clear textual mandates. This perceived disregard for the plain meaning of the Constitution fuels the argument for their removal from office, as they are seen as actively undermining the foundational principles of American citizenship.
Beyond the specific ruling on birthright citizenship, the call for impeachment is often broadened to encompass a pattern of judicial decisions. Concerns about issues like corporate personhood, presidential immunity, and past rulings on voting rights and reproductive freedom are frequently cited as evidence of a broader judicial activism that prioritizes political ideology over established legal precedent. The argument is that these justices have consistently shown a willingness to re-interpret or even disregard established law when it suits their agenda, rather than adhering to the text of the Constitution as written or respecting decades of legal precedent.
The accusation of disingenuous rulings is tied directly to a perceived abandonment of principles that some of these justices once espoused. Many on the bench, it’s argued, previously presented themselves as textualists who believed in adhering strictly to the written word of the Constitution, and as staunch opponents of “activist judges.” However, with a perceived ideological majority now in place, these same justices are accused of abandoning textualism and precedent in favor of a more results-oriented approach, drawing on obscure historical interpretations to justify their preferred outcomes. This shift is viewed as a profound betrayal of their judicial philosophy and an indicator of their lack of integrity.
The act of impeachment is seen by some as a necessary response to what they view as a deliberate subversion of law. They argue that when Supreme Court justices, or any public officials, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, that oath implies fidelity to its entirety. The act of voting to overturn established rights or to reinterpret constitutional text in ways that seem contrary to its clear meaning is viewed as a breach of that oath. This, in turn, is seen not merely as a legal disagreement but as an act of disloyalty, with some going so far as to suggest treasonous intent for attempting to “overthrow Democracy” through their judicial actions.
A significant point of contention is the alleged inability of these justices to comprehend or apply the Constitution’s clear language. The idea that four justices “can’t read” the Constitution accurately, particularly regarding a provision as straightforward as birthright citizenship, is a stark accusation. This perceived intellectual or interpretative failure is not seen as an isolated incident but as part of a larger pattern of rulings that disregard established legal understanding, leading to a loss of faith in the impartiality and competence of the Court.
Furthermore, accusations of corruption are frequently leveled, particularly against Justice Clarence Thomas. Citing reports of substantial gifts and financial benefits received from individuals with interests before the Court, this aspect of the argument suggests that his impartiality is compromised. This is presented not just as an ethical concern but as a direct indictment of his fitness for office and another strong basis for impeachment, independent of the birthright citizenship issue.
The political implications of impeachment are also a significant consideration for many. There’s a strong sentiment that impeaching these justices while a particular political party holds sway might be strategically unwise. The fear is that any vacancies created would be filled by new appointments that could further entrench the current ideological balance, potentially leading to even more unfavorable rulings. This leads to a nuanced position: a desire for removal but a caution about the timing, with some advocating for significant political shifts to occur first.
The debate also touches on the fundamental nature of the Court’s role. While the Court’s primary function is to interpret the Constitution, the argument for impeachment arises when that interpretation is perceived as going beyond interpretation into the realm of legislative action. Ruling against established birthright citizenship, which has been understood as a cornerstone of the Fourteenth Amendment for generations, is seen by many as an instance where the Court is overstepping its bounds and acting as a legislature rather than an interpreter of law.
Finally, there’s a deep-seated concern about the precedent being set. If the Supreme Court can effectively “delete a section of the constitution” or fundamentally alter long-standing interpretations of its provisions based on the perceived political beliefs of a majority of justices, it raises questions about the stability and predictability of American law. The call for impeachment, therefore, is not just about correcting perceived wrongs but also about safeguarding the integrity and authority of the Constitution itself.