The Supreme Court’s Decision Sparks Outrage from Liberals and Puts Constitutional Independence at Stake

Thematic H2 headers:

1. The Supreme Court’s Unpopular Stands
2. Democrats’ Threats to Court Independence
3. The Misguided Notion of Justice as Politics
4. Lessons in Constitutional Law
5. The Court’s Role in an “Age of Rage”

—

## The Supreme Court’s Unpopular Stands

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, many liberal politicians and pundits reacted with hyperbole and alarm. CNN’s Van Jones went as far as to claim that the decision was “almost a license to thug.” Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut expressed his fear and anger, denouncing six justices as “extreme and nakedly partisan hacks.” However, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court was designed to take stands that may be politically unpopular but constitutionally correct.

## Democrats’ Threats to Court Independence

Ironically, it is the Democrats who have become the very threat that the court was meant to resist. They have demanded that Chief Justice John Roberts appear before them to answer for his decisions, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer even warned Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that they would “pay the price.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has gone a step further, announcing her intention to seek the impeachment of all six conservative justices. This blatant disregard for the independence of the court undermines the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution.

## The Misguided Notion of Justice as Politics

The voices calling for packing the court or impeachment of justices reveal a dangerous perspective on justice as merely an extension of politics. For these pundits and politicians, justice is subject to the whims of the majority, rather than being based on constitutional principles. They fail to understand that the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret and uphold the Constitution, regardless of political considerations.

## Lessons in Constitutional Law

The disagreement over where to draw the line on presidential immunity is not a new one. Scholars have long debated this issue, and the Supreme Court’s decision adopted a middle approach, rejecting extreme arguments on both sides. However, Ocasio-Cortez and others who disagree with the decision claim that it is an assault on American democracy. It is essential to remember that the Supreme Court exists to safeguard the nation from authoritarianism, as Alexander Hamilton noted in The Federalist No. 78.

## The Court’s Role in an “Age of Rage”

Throughout history, there have been moments of intense fear and anger when people have turned against constitutional rights like free speech. This current “age of rage” is no exception. MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal has gone so far as to call the Constitution “trash” and argue for its abandonment. Law professors from prestigious universities have called for radical alterations to the Constitution. However, none of these threats or bloviating will succeed in undermining the court’s purpose. The Supreme Court is designed to stand against everyone and everything except for the Constitution, as it has been specifically crafted for this very moment.

In conclusion, it is crucial to recognize the significance of the Supreme Court’s decisions and the court’s role in upholding constitutional principles. The current attacks on the court’s independence and attempts to politicize justice are misguided and undermine the very foundation of our democracy. The court’s unpopular stands are a testament to its commitment to the Constitution, even in an “age of rage.” As citizens, we must value and protect the integrity of our judicial system to ensure the continued strength of our democracy.