America is NOT a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. This distinction is not a technicality, it's the difference between freedom and tyranny.
Voting is democratic and it has an import role to play, but it's not the principle that the courts are betraying. The principle is the protection of individual rights, which is what the Constitution is designed to protect. Indeed, a crucial function of the courts is to limit majority-will -- limit democracy -- by overriding Congress when they pass popular legislation that violates the Constitution.
Much to agree with in your reply. But, sorry, the "we're a republic, not a democracy" trope is one of the most tragically enduring errors in American political discourse. The dimensions of our "constitutional republic" that you highlighted are absolutely compatible with—and, I would argue, find their fullest realization within—a liberal-democratic system. It's not a "direct" democracy, that's true. But then again that particular version never exhausted the democratic template menu.
But you are assuming that a "A republic, not a democracy" implies incompatibility with democratic institutions. It does not. And the Founders didn't think of it that way. A representational form of government, where representatives are elected democratically is a core principle of the American system.
The important point that the Founders insisted on is that democracy is limited by the Constitution. In other words, the representatives, and therefore the will of the people, expressed democratically, is limited and subservient to the proper function of government. This is true whether the democracy is "direct" or "indirect" (i.e., through elected representatives).
What the Founders rejected was "pure" democracy -- i.e., where the will of the people dictates what the government can and cannot do.
The essence of the American system is the protection of individual rights and rule of law, not men. Democratic institutions (such as electing representatives) are a crucial part of this system, but they are in service of the Constitutional protection of rights.
Why would I care about what the Founders think? The true founders are the Reconstruction Republicans, and the core founding documents are the 13th-15th Amendments. The guiding stars should be Stevens and Sumner and Ben Wade, not the shot in the dark that the original Constitution was.
Please ... a more contrasting background/font combo? I strain to read this so much. I'm thinking of just giving up. I'm sure you're trying to avoid high-contrast eyestrain. But you have gone too far in that direction, IMHO. Please think about it.
Nice ideas you've got there. But this is a three-party doom loop, and Congress is the biggest offender in that. I do not see any hope that Congress will reform itself. I think that, as our society and the world have grown more complex, congressional politicians have become less and less willing to make tough decisions, preferring to push those on to the other branches of government, and I don't see an end to this process of the progressive weakening of the legislative branch.
The President is accountable every 4 years or by impeachment. SCOTUS is not "accountable", nor should it be, to the general public. Perhaps false assumptions are really the issue here.
More nonsense propaganda. The Supreme Court was never intended to be democratically overseen. Laws made by Congress should not apply to it. If you don't like it then change the Constitution but don't agitate everyone by claiming a rogue SCOTUS.
This is more properly seen as a battle between "living tree" Progressive and Originalist/Textualist interpretations. This is the correct place to focus the conversation, but few people particularly in progressive spaces seem to want to frame it that way, perhaps because it clearly undercuts their positions.
And then the "originalists" discard originalism/textualism when it gets in the way of the outcome they prefer. After the immunity ruling, it's impossible to see the current SCOTUS majority as sincere about adhering to the plain text of the Constitution.
It really doesn’t. I don’t agree with everything SCOTUS has done but it surely doesn’t create originalist out of whole cloth. Perhaps you could give an example.
There is no Constitutional basis for any decision they've made in support of the "unitary executive." On the contrary, after fighting a war for independence from the tyranny of King George III, the Founders specifically wanted to avoid granting a president the powers of a king. But Roberts's SCOTUS is doing its best to help implement Project 2025, particularly with regard to presidential omnipotence.
Some of the "thinkers" backing Trump see the Constitution itself as fundamentally flawed due to the influence of Enlightenment liberalism.
When Kevin Roberts et al. said that Orban's Hungary was THE model for their political project, it wasn't because emulating Orban would bring the U.S. closer to the spirit of the founding. On the contrary, the aim is to resurrect something like an ethno-nationalist "confessional state" under a godly monarch. Some people in the pro-Trump right wing have even praised Vladimir Putin as someone who "gets it" and is supposedly defending "Christian civilization" from the corrosive force of "secular liberalism."
Well in that case, there is no Constitutional basis for the Separation of Powers, but everyone agrees that the structure of the Constitution requires that implicitly.
The very fact there is a Congress making (or supposed to be making) laws, and a Supreme Court, clearly shows that the US in no way has a "King" or could possibly have a King. That is just melodramatic sensationalizing.
What is happening is an unwinding of the institutional practices, including Supreme Court precedents, that have evolved over decades that are not consistent or supported by the Constitution. I get it that some people cherish these practices and believe that once they are accepted, they are immanent.
As for examples -
Jack Smith's appointment. I think the lower court got this exactly right. Merrick Garland assumed based on (bad) legal precedents that he had the right to make that appointment. The analysis in the the judgement was correct in my opinion even if inconvenient.
SCOTUS ruling on Presidential immunity. Could have been spelled out better but the basic premise is correct - you can't go after the President for acts he commits "As President" (not all acts he commits, just those done "As President"). This is as required by the Constitution as the Separation of Powers even if not explicit.
More importantly, the notion that Congress can control elements of the Executive branch in ways not clearly spelled out by the Constitution, such as limiting the removal of Executive Officers, is just plain wrong, regardless of the fact that it has been accepted practice for years. I think SCOTUS did a great job parsing when elements (agencies) of the Executive branch are carrying on a Legislative role, and recognizing those as potentially coming under the control of Congress, but for those elements of the Executive branch that are not, Congress should not be able to limit the President's control. That is Separation of Powers 101, and give points to SCOTUS for holding out a compromise.
I get it, most of us do not like Trump, he is a truly distasteful individual, and to have him as President is surely embarrassing for many. But people need to put on their Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance when evaluating these things and stop judging based on their feelings.
Kevin Jr. McMahon, "A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other..." https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo211872635.html
A data-rich examination of the US Supreme Court’s unprecedented detachment from the democratic processes that buttress its legitimacy.
America is NOT a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. This distinction is not a technicality, it's the difference between freedom and tyranny.
Voting is democratic and it has an import role to play, but it's not the principle that the courts are betraying. The principle is the protection of individual rights, which is what the Constitution is designed to protect. Indeed, a crucial function of the courts is to limit majority-will -- limit democracy -- by overriding Congress when they pass popular legislation that violates the Constitution.
Much to agree with in your reply. But, sorry, the "we're a republic, not a democracy" trope is one of the most tragically enduring errors in American political discourse. The dimensions of our "constitutional republic" that you highlighted are absolutely compatible with—and, I would argue, find their fullest realization within—a liberal-democratic system. It's not a "direct" democracy, that's true. But then again that particular version never exhausted the democratic template menu.
But you are assuming that a "A republic, not a democracy" implies incompatibility with democratic institutions. It does not. And the Founders didn't think of it that way. A representational form of government, where representatives are elected democratically is a core principle of the American system.
The important point that the Founders insisted on is that democracy is limited by the Constitution. In other words, the representatives, and therefore the will of the people, expressed democratically, is limited and subservient to the proper function of government. This is true whether the democracy is "direct" or "indirect" (i.e., through elected representatives).
What the Founders rejected was "pure" democracy -- i.e., where the will of the people dictates what the government can and cannot do.
The essence of the American system is the protection of individual rights and rule of law, not men. Democratic institutions (such as electing representatives) are a crucial part of this system, but they are in service of the Constitutional protection of rights.
Why would I care about what the Founders think? The true founders are the Reconstruction Republicans, and the core founding documents are the 13th-15th Amendments. The guiding stars should be Stevens and Sumner and Ben Wade, not the shot in the dark that the original Constitution was.
The ideas and system established by the Founders are what made the rest possible.
The current court is not only not protecting individual rights, it's actively eroding them.
Except for the rights of those categories of individuals (among which the Roberts Court, incredibly, includes corporations) it favors.
Please ... a more contrasting background/font combo? I strain to read this so much. I'm thinking of just giving up. I'm sure you're trying to avoid high-contrast eyestrain. But you have gone too far in that direction, IMHO. Please think about it.
Congress can impose rules on congress without a constitutional amendment?
Nice ideas you've got there. But this is a three-party doom loop, and Congress is the biggest offender in that. I do not see any hope that Congress will reform itself. I think that, as our society and the world have grown more complex, congressional politicians have become less and less willing to make tough decisions, preferring to push those on to the other branches of government, and I don't see an end to this process of the progressive weakening of the legislative branch.
The President is accountable every 4 years or by impeachment. SCOTUS is not "accountable", nor should it be, to the general public. Perhaps false assumptions are really the issue here.
More nonsense propaganda. The Supreme Court was never intended to be democratically overseen. Laws made by Congress should not apply to it. If you don't like it then change the Constitution but don't agitate everyone by claiming a rogue SCOTUS.
This is more properly seen as a battle between "living tree" Progressive and Originalist/Textualist interpretations. This is the correct place to focus the conversation, but few people particularly in progressive spaces seem to want to frame it that way, perhaps because it clearly undercuts their positions.
This Court creates "originalist/textualist" meaning out of whole cloth.
And then the "originalists" discard originalism/textualism when it gets in the way of the outcome they prefer. After the immunity ruling, it's impossible to see the current SCOTUS majority as sincere about adhering to the plain text of the Constitution.
It really doesn’t. I don’t agree with everything SCOTUS has done but it surely doesn’t create originalist out of whole cloth. Perhaps you could give an example.
There is no Constitutional basis for any decision they've made in support of the "unitary executive." On the contrary, after fighting a war for independence from the tyranny of King George III, the Founders specifically wanted to avoid granting a president the powers of a king. But Roberts's SCOTUS is doing its best to help implement Project 2025, particularly with regard to presidential omnipotence.
Some of the "thinkers" backing Trump see the Constitution itself as fundamentally flawed due to the influence of Enlightenment liberalism.
When Kevin Roberts et al. said that Orban's Hungary was THE model for their political project, it wasn't because emulating Orban would bring the U.S. closer to the spirit of the founding. On the contrary, the aim is to resurrect something like an ethno-nationalist "confessional state" under a godly monarch. Some people in the pro-Trump right wing have even praised Vladimir Putin as someone who "gets it" and is supposedly defending "Christian civilization" from the corrosive force of "secular liberalism."
Well in that case, there is no Constitutional basis for the Separation of Powers, but everyone agrees that the structure of the Constitution requires that implicitly.
The very fact there is a Congress making (or supposed to be making) laws, and a Supreme Court, clearly shows that the US in no way has a "King" or could possibly have a King. That is just melodramatic sensationalizing.
What is happening is an unwinding of the institutional practices, including Supreme Court precedents, that have evolved over decades that are not consistent or supported by the Constitution. I get it that some people cherish these practices and believe that once they are accepted, they are immanent.
As for examples -
Jack Smith's appointment. I think the lower court got this exactly right. Merrick Garland assumed based on (bad) legal precedents that he had the right to make that appointment. The analysis in the the judgement was correct in my opinion even if inconvenient.
SCOTUS ruling on Presidential immunity. Could have been spelled out better but the basic premise is correct - you can't go after the President for acts he commits "As President" (not all acts he commits, just those done "As President"). This is as required by the Constitution as the Separation of Powers even if not explicit.
More importantly, the notion that Congress can control elements of the Executive branch in ways not clearly spelled out by the Constitution, such as limiting the removal of Executive Officers, is just plain wrong, regardless of the fact that it has been accepted practice for years. I think SCOTUS did a great job parsing when elements (agencies) of the Executive branch are carrying on a Legislative role, and recognizing those as potentially coming under the control of Congress, but for those elements of the Executive branch that are not, Congress should not be able to limit the President's control. That is Separation of Powers 101, and give points to SCOTUS for holding out a compromise.
I get it, most of us do not like Trump, he is a truly distasteful individual, and to have him as President is surely embarrassing for many. But people need to put on their Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance when evaluating these things and stop judging based on their feelings.
Kevin Jr. McMahon, "A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other..." https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo211872635.html