Democrats, Declaring Supreme Court ‘Illegitimate,’ Flip on Holding an Independent Judiciary Sacrosanct

Democrats are savaging the Supreme Court for its decision in Louisiana v. Callais saying race-based congressional districts are unconstitutional. In doing so, the left is going beyond the language they decry when it comes from Republicans, undermining the independent judiciary that America counts on to settle contentious issues.President Obama posted on X that the six to three ruling “was one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups.” Yet the Nine ruled that race-based districts are themselves discriminatory, disenfranchising voters.The “non-African American” plaintiffs were a minority in their gerrymandered Louisiana district. Associate Justice Alito wrote that “the Constitution almost never permits” discrimination “on the basis of race.” The ruling left the balance of the 1965 law intact.The question, Justice Alito said, “was whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, flanked by fellow Democrats, said that “this illegitimate Supreme Court majority” ought to have ruled in the affirmative.It’s “not the Roberts Court” but “the Trump Court,” Mr. Jeffries said, the kind of barb that past legislators left to pundits. Mr. Jeffries may not know that, back when President Trump was hosting “The Apprentice,” the Chief Justice had the same opinion. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” he said in 2007, “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”In 2023, when President Trump criticized an “Obama judge,” Chief Justice Roberts made a rare public rebuke. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges,” he said, “Bush judges or Clinton judges.” His defense of judicial independence was met with grunts of approval from all sides.Democrats cheered the Nine’s rulings against Mr. Trump this year on issues such as his “Liberation Day” tariffs and federalizing the Illinois National Guard. In those cases, Republicans grumbled but stopped short of calling into question the High Court itself.“Illegitimate” is a corrosive term. When Mr. Trump calls the 2020 election “illegitimate,” he’s accused of undermining democracy. The judicial equivalent is refusing to accept verdicts, which is why America’s tradition is to accept them. “This,” to use the Democratic mantra, “is what democracy looks like.”For this reason, Americans have always rallied in defense of the Nine. President Franklin Roosevelt’s scheme to “pack the court” with new justices failed. But leftists are again embracing the idea. Never mind that in 2019, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — a liberal appointee of President Clinton — said that “nine seems to be a good number.”Expansion, Ginsburg said, would hurt the institution by making it seem partisan. The Nine are insulated from heated political moments like this one by design. The Constitution invests Congress, not judges, with the power to make laws. New amendments can be added with ascent by three-fourths of the states.It’s a system so complex that no kings can rule by fiat. It frustrates sweeping alterations, forces compromises, and ensures that cooler heads prevail. This is why justices get lifetime appointments, so they can ignore political passions to uphold the Constitution.Mr. Obama alluded to this, urging “citizens … who cherish our democratic ideals” to “vote … in every election and every level.” But the implication is that this slate of the Nine, appointed by presidents and confirmed by the Senate like previous ones, resulted from something alien to democracy.It’s not just for legislation that Americans rely on the Supreme Court, either. The chief justice presides over impeachment trials for presidents. In the 1876 and 2000 elections, the Nine settled questions of disputed electoral votes. Absent the trust placed in them as neutral arbiters, citizens might never have accepted Presidents Hayes and George W. Bush.Campaigning against and fundraising off Supreme Court rulings isn’t corrosive. Undermining its legitimacy is. The Nine are not a third legislative chamber that frustrated partisans can bring under their control. The Constitution provides the tools to implement the changes they want. It’s hard, time-consuming work. That’s what democracy looks like.

Democrats, Declaring Supreme Court ‘Illegitimate,’ Flip on Holding an Independent Judiciary Sacrosanct

More from the New York Sun

Florida To Consider Banning Illegal Immigrants From Attending Public Colleges

‘Democrats Should Take This Seriously’: Reality TV Star Spencer Pratt Goes Viral With Campaign Ad Targeting L.A.’s Political Class

Ingenious Proposal Emerges for Reforming the Senate Filibuster, Which Promotes Paralysis at Washington

More from the New York Sun

Florida To Consider Banning Illegal Immigrants From Attending Public Colleges

‘Democrats Should Take This Seriously’: Reality TV Star Spencer Pratt Goes Viral With Campaign Ad Targeting L.A.’s Political Class

Ingenious Proposal Emerges for Reforming the Senate Filibuster, Which Promotes Paralysis at Washington

Today’s High-Tech ‘Big Brother’ Hard To Square With Constitution

‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ is Moderately Sharp and Stylish, but Dresses Down Compared With the Original Model

‘Reunion’: A Coming-of-Age Second World War Film Belatedly Comes of Age

Supreme Court Appears Divided On Allowing Trump To End Protections For Haitian and Syrian Migrants

Time To Say Goodbye, Jay Powell