In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled states cannot use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to kick President Trump off state ballots over his alleged “insurrectionist” actions on January 6, 2021.

Learning that state officials aren’t empowered to simply toss leading presidential candidates off ballots came as a great surprise to many incredulous left-wingers. 

Once you’ve convinced yourself Mr. Trump led a Hitlerian putsch that nearly overthrew democracy, every crackpot legal theory aimed at stopping him sounds not only morally justified but legally sound.

Just last week, progressives were fuming that the Supreme Court hasn’t expedited Mr. Trump’s immunity claims to fit with President Biden’s campaign schedule. 

The deeper problem, though, is that the left — but, really, anyone who is Trump-obsessed — can’t seem to comprehend the notion of neutrality in law or principle. 

Here, for instance, is how the Associated Press framed the court’s decision: “Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to hold him accountable for attack on Capitol in 2021.”

That is, most definitely, not what happened. Scotus ruled on the constitutional question. Whether Colorado thinks it’s holding Mr. Trump accountable — and the contention that he engaged in “insurrection” is, let’s just say, highly debatable — is another story.

In any event, the case is another reminder that the Supreme Court is perhaps the only functioning institution of government. By “functioning,” of course, I don’t mean the court “moves the country forward,” “upholds democracy,” “keeps us safe,” or any of the other twaddle leftists insist constitutes good governance. I mean a court majority takes its constitutional mandate, as written, seriously.

No, Scotus doesn’t get every case right. Sometimes, led by the chief justice, it is perplexingly Solomonic. It is wrong, though, within the contours of normal. Congress, on the other hand, has handed its responsibilities on war, spending, and governing to the executive branch. 

At this point, we are far more likely to see a congressman dunking on someone on social media than acting to defend the document he swore to uphold.

Worse, Democrats are often cheerleaders for more executive abuse. The White House, also abnormally, feels unfettered in regulating the economy and our lives with no oversight from the legislative branch or voters. 

Mr. Biden openly ignores the court. The most obvious example is the unconstitutional student loan “forgiveness” plan, a transparent effort to bribe younger voters.

Sure, the Colorado ballot case was so weak that even Justice Sonia Sotomayor couldn’t go along with Democrats. That’s rare. If it weren’t for originalists (for lack of a better word), the country would have been plunged into chaos long ago, and not only on the political front.

In July 2020, the Supreme Court’s approval rating stood at 58 percent. A few months earlier, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, threatened justices with a “whirlwind” if they ignored the will of the Democratic Party. 

Democrats have been ratcheting up their attacks on the court since President Obama used his State of the Union to publicly castigate it upholding the First Amendment.

Since that time, a concerted project among donors, politicians and major press organizations to smear and delegitimize the high court has been underway. It’s working. 

As of the last poll taken, the court’s approval rating had fallen to 41 percent and its disapproval was at 58 percent, most of the change driven by left-wing voters.

Most of the justices have been impressively resistant to the pressures of politics. The court, obviously, was conceived to be impervious to the vagaries of public opinion. 

This is an upsetting notion for people like Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, one of the nation’s leading conspiracy theorists, who believes low poll numbers are proof of a legitimacy problem. What, one wonders, does that say about the 12 percent approval of Congress?

Every time the left suffers a setback at Scotus, they accuse justices with long histories of consistent judicial philosophy of corruption. 

When the conservatives lose — as they did recently with North Carolina redistricting and the case covering gender dysphoria under disability laws — the press acts like it is some huge surprise that the court didn’t act reflexively partisan. 

This, like so many of the contemporary left’s accusations, is just projection.

The reason the left has a poor record in front of the court — and the trend goes back to Mr. Obama’s historic string of losses — isn’t that Scotus is bought. 

It’s that the contemporary left’s vision of governance conflicts with the Constitution. If the left doesn’t destroy the court, it is likely blue states will begin ignoring it.

For now, though, Scotus remains perhaps the last institutional bulwark against lawlessness and nuttery.

Creators.com