It is time to get real about what the judicial system is doing to help Trump.
Like the autocrat who he is, Trump is ruling by executive orders. He has issued hundreds, most of them illegal or unconstitutional. His strategy is to establish fait accompli as facts on the ground. Departments, agencies, and individuals are acting on them. Meanwhile, organizations and individuals are opposing them by bringing suits against them. Judges at the district and appellate levels have ruled against most of Trump’s executive orders. While decisions are being appealed, they are not being enforced; the courts might be pausing, but are not actually stopping, Trump from doing as he pleases. So Trump defies the courts, his orders remain in place, and their damage continues and is not undone. Notwithstanding, the commentariat clings to the hope that the courts are the last line of defense of democracy.
Many important cases have not yet arrived at the Supreme Court, and the Left pins its hopes on decisions preserving democracy as we know it. But there is no realistic reason to believe that a court led by John Roberts, a shallow, weak, privileged preppie, has the integrity and courage to defy Trump’s wishes. In fact, his and the court’s record even when Trump was not in office is one of egregious rulings, many in defiance of common sense, reality, or precedent—all with their anti-democratic bias in favor of authoritarianism.
Four major decisions, with many others also decided on political, not legal, grounds, have already damaged the standing of the rule of law. Many have already damaged democracy
Its Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission decision (2010) ruled, in effect, that money equals speech; therefore, the First Amendment permits unlimited campaign contributions by corporations and unions. The result has been the flooding of campaigns with contributions of millionaires and billionaires deciding many election results.
Its Shelby County v. Holder decision (2013) eliminated preclearance under the Voting Rights Act and weakened that act because the decision held that racism no longer influenced elections in pre-cleared jurisdictions. Immediately, those jurisdictions began to restrict the franchise and skew or hinder voting. The decision has eroded “the consent of the people” in this democracy.
Its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision (2022) overturned the constitutional right to an abortion established in Roe v. Wade (1973). Three Trump nominees—Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh—testified that Roe v. Wade was “settled” law yet supported the decision. Their perjured testimony, added to the misleading disclosure statements of Justices Thomas and Alito, has tarnished the court’s reputation for honesty.
Its Trump v. United States decision granted the president presumptive immunity from criminal liability for official acts and absolute immunity for some “core” official acts. The result virtually exempts the president from legal accountability and places him (or her) above the law.
A fifth major decision now pending on birthright citizenship might make it difficult, if not impossible, for courts to restrain presidential power, according to a brief account from Democracy Docket:
SCOTUS mulls limiting judges’ authority to block Trump’s power grab
SCOTUS heard oral argument in the birthright citizenship case that could greatly limit federal judges' ability to block President Donald Trump from expanding presidential powers. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the government's stance as a "catch-me-if-you-can" regime that would make it virtually impossible to use the courts to block government actions.
Such a ruling would amount to a death knell for constitutional democracy in America and an orchestrated peal for authoritarianism.
But it is not only the Supreme Court which supports many of Trump’s executive orders and administrative actions. The federal judicial system as a whole is doing likewise by failing to enforce decisions against the Trump administration. It is acting slowly and cautiously while the damage of those orders and actions continues at an alarming rate. Abrego Garcia was illegally deported to El Salvador shortly after 15 March; two months later, despite court rulings and orders, he remains there. The Trump administration is defying the courts, and the courts are doing nothing to effect Garcia’s return to the United States or to address the administration’s defiance. Meanwhile, his administration is on a rampage of arrests, jailings, and deportations of students, children, citizens, judges, and, possibly soon, congressional representatives. The courts have stopped none of these offenses, for not one court order on immigration has been obeyed.
In short, the federal judiciary, although ruling against almost all of Trump’s executive orders, is taking no enforcement or corrective action. It is helping Trump by failing to recognize the damage done and being done, ignoring the threat of greater damage to come, tolerating his non-compliance or defiance, and disregarding the urgency of the moment. It is thus abetting his conduct and eroding not only its own authority, but also the rule of law. The constitutional crisis, which many claim is approaching, is already here.
So, sadly and scarily, the courts have shown that they will not be the last line of defense of democracy. Which means—to get real—that “We the People” must be that last line or accept the status of second-class or even uncertain citizenship. But that line of defense is being resisted by Republicans at both federal and state levels who are hard at work to manipulate the 2026 state, House, and Senate elections to ensure GOP wins, to deny the validity and legitimacy of elections, and to support Trump’s authoritarian rule. Trump might, if his actions continue to rouse the citizenry, prompt protests, and threaten widespread GOP defeats, label demonstrations as insurrections, declare martial law, suppress protests with federalized national guard troops, or even suspend elections. If so in 2026, no better in 2028.
No comments:
Post a Comment