Tag Archives: supreme-court

The Supreme Court Is Not Above the Law Either

Future Hope, , , ,

“I think we can do a lot, if a critical mass of organizations steps forward and develops a plan to go public and visible calling out the undemocratic and dangerous reality of what the Supreme Court majority is doing, particularly these shadowy, opaque, undemocratic ‘emergency’ decisions. Just like we have had and will be having, on October 18, successful mass actions of millions in the streets around the country calling for No Kings, worker justice, women’s rights, climate justice, racial justice and more, it is time for such a nationally coordinated action sometime this fall focused on this issue.”

This is what I wrote in a column about a month ago about the Supreme Court. Now that the mass mobilization for October 18 is over, as will be the fall elections as of November 5, I think, at that time, there’s a need for a much closer look at what an activist strategy could be to call out the conservative/MAGA majority on the Supreme Court.

I am fully aware that it is very rare for progressives to do something like this. There is understandable concern that doing so could be seen as “inappropriate,” or “too risky,” or “bad strategy.” After all, in the US system of government, judges have a lot of power. To some extent they are seen as, and often are, above the fray of politics, something seen as often corrupt and dishonest by a lot of people, on the right, left and center.

Of course, “above the fray of politics” sure doesn’t apply to this usually-Trump-supporting Supreme Court.

Just in the last few months I have considered with others active in the climate movement whether we should publicly demonstrate calling for a key judicial body, not the Supreme Court, to do the right thing when it comes to a long-term campaign we are leading. We collectively decided it wasn’t the right thing to do.

But it’s different with this Supreme Court. First, there’s the fact that it was very much “politics” that is responsible for the 6-3 conservative majority. Two of the conservatives, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Conan Barrett, obtained their seats because of Republican Party political hypocrisy and raw power politics. Following Antonin Scalia’s death on February 13, 2016 and President Obama’s subsequent nomination of Merrick Garland to replace him, Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing and vote on that nomination, saying it was too close to the upcoming Presidential election eight months later! This led to the seat being vacant for 14 months until Trump, in 2017, nominated Neil Gorsuch.

Conan Barrett was nominated only 40 days, not eight months, before the 2020 election to replace the deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Republicans didn’t care then about it being “too close” to a Presidential election, and she was confirmed.

So what would be the objective of some kind of activist campaign, or even just a national day of action, focused on the Supreme Court?

One would be, for sure, to remind the country of how Gorsuch and Conan Barrett were nominated, the hypocrisy involved which has led to a court now “out of balance” when it comes to representing the differing views of US law as well as the reality of US public opinion.

Another would be to draw attention to proposals that have been made to address the fundamental unfairness of the present Supreme Court reality. The most broadly-supported proposal, the TRUST Act (Transparency and Responsibility in Upholding Standards in the Judiciary) was put forward this spring by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman Hank Johnson. It is co-sponsored by 26 Senators and 10 House members.

When might a national day, or national week, of action happen? It’d be good if it happened soon, but there are plenty of current fights that need a lot of support, and then there are the holidays, so sometime in the new year seems more realistic.

How about this? March 8 and March 15 are the birthdays of two deceased but still important Supreme Court justices: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. on the 8th, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on March 15. March 8 is also International Women’s Day.

Ginsburg was the second woman in US history to serve on the Supreme Court, so there’s a definite connection there.

Here’s what the Wikipedia entry for Holmes summarizes as his main contributions legally: “Holmes is one of the most widely cited and influential Supreme Court justices in American history, noted for his long tenure on the Court and for his pithy opinions – particularly those on civil liberties and American constitutional democracy – and deference to the decisions of elected legislatures.” Wow, very timely for sure!

Just like Trump, the Supreme Court is not above the law!

Ted Glick has been a progressive activist and organizer since 1968. He is the author of the recently published books, Burglar for Peace and 21st Century Revolution, both available at https://pmpress.org . More info can be found at https://tedglick.com.

Supremely Courting Authoritarian Rule

Future Hope, , , ,

“Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway,” Jackson wrote. “But this Court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.”

-Supreme Court Justice Katanji Jackson, July 10, 2025

Eight months into Trumpist/MAGA rule, the broadly-based resistance to that rule is standing strong. There is no question that the Trumpist plan was to so overwhelm us within six or so months, “flooding the zone” with one attack and lie after the other, such that, by now, they would be well on their way to their objective of permanent, authoritarian rule of the USA with all that this would mean for the world.

Early in February I wrote a column which listed five areas of focused work which, together, could make it possible for us to successfully prevent this objective of the regime: street heat, local/state/federal government pressure, legal action/the courts, media and publicity and outreach. Overall, I think we’ve done well in all these areas. We are clearly still on the defensive and will be until at least the November, 2026 elections, but we have also clearly won a number of victories, among them the political fact that Trump’s polling numbers are way down. Much of what the MAGA’s are trying to do is very unpopular.

What about the legal challenges to Trump’s many (321) Executive Orders? Here’s what the Associated Press reports as of yesterday as far as what has happened to them: 321 have been filed. 138 have been partial or full victories for the democratic forces. 91 were losses; the EO’s were “left in effect.” And 92 are pending.

An optimist would look at these numbers and correctly say that 71.5% were either victories of some kind or still pending. A pessimist would say that 57% were either losses or still pending. But there’s a deeper issue that needs to be assessed: the shadow docket, where the Court majority makes “emergency” decisions without explaining publicly why they are doing so. 

An NBC article yesterday reported on the results of this deeply concerning—and un-American—way that this particular Supreme Court, dominated by MAGA supporters and conservatives, has been advancing the Trumpist agenda:

“So far, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on an emergency basis 28 times, according to an NBC News tally. It has lost only two. Four cases are pending, although the court issued temporary wins to the government in one of them while it decides the next steps to take. Three others resulted in no decision.

“The limited number of emergency requests compared with the total number of cases indicates the administration has been wary of rushing to the justices on issues where even a conservative majority receptive to some of its aggressive assertions of executive power may push back.”

Emergency requests and decisions have dramatically increased under the Roberts Supreme Court, and it is certain that there will be more going forward.

Katanji Jackson, in a 15 page dissent to an “emergency” decision on the issue of birthright citizenship, said this:

“The Court has cleared a path for the Executive to choose law-free action at this perilous moment for our Constitution—right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints.” she wrote. “I have no doubt that, if judges must allow the Executive to act unlawfully in some circumstances, as the Court concludes today, executive lawlessness will flourish.”

So what can the progressive resistance movement do about this?

I think we can do a lot, if a critical mass of organizations steps forward and develops a plan to go public and visible calling out the undemocratic and dangerous reality of what the Supreme Court majority is doing, particularly these shadowy, opaque, undemocratic “emergency” decisions. Just like we have had and will be having, on October 18, successful mass actions of millions in the streets around the country calling for No Kings, worker justice, women’s rights, climate justice, racial justice and more, it is time for such a nationally coordinated action sometime this fall focused on this issue.

Resistance activists and supporters in the mass media and social media should be all over this one. It’s fundamental to all that we are fighting for. Elected officials need to be speaking up. Every way that we have to educate and activate should be used.

It’s time to bring Supreme Court allowance of “executive lawlessness” out into the open as a major issue.

Ted Glick has been a progressive activist and organizer since 1968. He is the author of the recently published books, Burglar for Peace and 21st Century Revolution, both available at https://pmpress.org . More info can be found at https://tedglick.com.