Supreme Court's Idelogues

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

James Madison, American statesman, diplomat, and Founding Father and the fourth president of the United States

“All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.”

Andrew Jackson, American lawyer, general, statesman, and seventh president of the United States

“The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.”

Caroline Kennedy, American author, attorney, and diplomat serving as the United States ambassador to Australia

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our property and our liberty and our property under the Constitution.”

Charles Evans Hughes, American statesman, politician, academic, jurist, and 11th chief justice of the United States

“It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments.”

Alexander Hamilton, American military officer, statesman, Founding Father, and first secretary of the treasury


Supreme Court's Idelogues

The Supreme Court’s Ideologues agreed to accept Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision banning him from placement on the Colorado Republican Primary ballot. That being the case, and with the experience of recent decisions, it is right to speculate as to how independent the current makeup of SCOTUS may be.

The Founding Fathers of the United States provided us with sufficient warning of the potential for merging three independent branches of government into a single entity as the greatest threat to a democratic republic created in the Constitution of 1789. There have been instances in the history of the United States where the lines between independent branches became blurred. In the current apparent merger of the Supreme Court’s allegiance to the ideology of the radical right wing of the Republican Party in recent decisions, smell of the merger the founders warned us against.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions, particularly the ideological outcome in the Dobbs case, have ignited widespread concerns about the court’s dedication to impartiality. As the court prepares to examine Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot based on the 14th Amendment, these apprehensions gain momentum. Questions raised not only the influence of political ideology on judicial decisions but also the broader role of the judiciary in safeguarding democracy.

Before continuing, a disclaimer is in order. I am not a lawyer. Keeping that in mind, this piece is written as a lay opinion and not as a legal argument. In addition, the image I am using does not depict the current justices, rather it is a generic collection of judges.

Supreme Court’s Ideologues: Decisions in Dobbs

The Dobbs case epitomizes the Supreme Court’s recent inclination towards early and ideologically motivated decisions. The intricate arguments presented by the conservative majority raised eyebrows. The decision underscored a departure from traditional legal reasoning. This deviation challenges the court’s historical role as a bastion of justice. It erodes public trust, especially in politically sensitive matters where objectivity is paramount.

Trump’s Eligibility and the 14th Amendment

The case questioning Trump’s eligibility in Colorado delves into the 14th Amendment. The third clause explicitly prohibits individuals engaged in insurrection from holding office. The lingering concern is whether the conservative-leaning court will prioritize political considerations over the constitutional principles at stake. Recent events have fueled skepticism, with the court’s decisions. They appear to align more with ideological preferences rather than a strict interpretation of the law.

Justice Thomas’s Potential Conflict: Supreme Court’s Ideologues

Justice Thomas’s connection to the MAGA movement through his wife’s active participation in the January 6th insurrection raises substantial ethical questions. The essence of judicial impartiality demands recusal in cases directly tied to events involving close family members. This ethical quandary further contributes to the overarching narrative of potential biases within the court. Doubt is cast on its ability to adjudicate politically sensitive matters without undue influence.

Monetary Contributions and Judicial Independence

Recent revelations about monetary contributions to conservative justices, including Justice Thomas, introduce another layer of concern regarding the court’s independence. The pivotal question arises: can these justices remain impartial in the face of financial ties? The potential for external pressures to shape the court’s decisions. Are some Justices particularly in alignment with the interests of contributors sustaining the lavish lifestyles of justices? This revelation amplifies concerns about the court’s integrity and independence.

Additional Examples

Consider the court’s decisions on issues related to voting rights and gerrymandering. Critics argue that the rulings have favored partisan interests over democratic principles. They argue this potentially undermines the essence of fair representation.

Examine the court’s stance on executive power during national emergencies. Past decisions may indicate deference to executive authority. These decisions raise concerns about the preservation of checks and balances in the democratic system.

Supreme Court’s Ideologues: The Erosion of Trust in Democratic Processes

The broader implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions extend beyond individual cases. Instances, where the court appears to favor political considerations over constitutional interpretation, contribute to a growing erosion of public trust in democratic processes. Citizens, already skeptical of institutions, become increasingly disillusioned as they witness a judiciary seemingly swayed by ideological influences.

Exacerbating Concerns

The court’s handling of cases related to voting rights and gerrymandering serves as an exacerbating factor. Critics argue that these decisions may contribute to a distortion of the democratic process, compromising the principle of fair representation. Such concerns intensify the scrutiny of the court’s ability to act as a neutral arbiter in matters crucial to the democratic fabric.

Supreme Court’s Ideologues: Executive Power and Checks and Balances

Examining the court’s stance on executive power during national emergencies reveals a potential imbalance in the system of checks and balances. The court consistently leans towards a deferential approach to executive authority. This raises questions arise about its role in safeguarding the democratic framework, particularly in times of crisis.

Transparency and Accountability

Addressing the issue of monetary contributions adds another layer to the discourse. Transparency and accountability become essential elements in upholding the court’s integrity. The potential influence of financial ties raises concerns about the court’s ability to remain immune to external pressures, jeopardizing its impartiality and the democratic values it is entrusted to protect.

Supreme Court’s Ideologues: The Imperative of Judicial Reassurance

In this context, the Supreme Court faces a critical juncture in reassuring the public of its commitment to justice and constitutional principles. The court must strive to dispel concerns about ideological biases, ethical conflicts, and financial influences. Transparency in decision-making processes and adherence to established legal norms are imperative in rebuilding public trust in the judiciary.


As the Supreme Court navigates through politically charged cases, the urgency to maintain public trust in its objectivity becomes paramount for the democratic foundation. The court’s recent ideological leanings, coupled with ethical and financial considerations, necessitate a comprehensive reevaluation of its commitment to impartial justice. The nation’s confidence in the judiciary rests on the court’s ability to transcend political influences and steadfastly uphold the constitutional principles that form the bedrock of democratic governance. The preservation of democratic ideals hinges on the court’s unwavering dedication to justice, impartiality, and the integrity of the Constitution.

By Politics-as-Usual

Roger is a retired Professor of language and literacy. Over the past 15 years since his retirement, Roger has kept busy with reading, writing, and creating landscape photographs. In this time of National crisis, as Fascist ideas and policies are being introduced to the American people and ignored by the Mainstream Press, he decided to stand up and be counted as a Progressive American with some ideas that should be shared with as many people who care to read and/or participate in discusssions of these issues. He doesn't ask anyone to agree with his point of view, but if entering the conversation he demands civility. No conspiracy theories, no wild accusations, no threats, no disrespect will be tolerated. Roger monitors all comments and email communication. That is the only rule for entering the conversation. One may persuade, argue for a different point of view, or toss out something that has not been discussed so long as the tone remains part of a civil discussion. Only then can we find common ground and meaningful democratic change.

Leave a Reply