For The Washington Post

ONE TIME USE ILLUSTRATION FOR OP-KAGAN ON THE TRUMP DICTATORSHIP

Music-Drake Kendrick Lamar

The Washington Post

op-allen-democracypromo

(iStock)

stock

Patient lying inside a medical scanner in hospital

(Michelle Kondrich/The Washington Post)

WAUKESHA, WI - MAY 1st: Former president Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally on Wednesday May 1st, 2024.  (Photo by Sara Stathas for the Washington Post)

RUSSIA-US-DIPLOMACY-BASKET-COURT

Contributor

Supreme Court of the United States

Photographer

**ONE TIME USE ONLY FOR OP-LAMOTT

Election 2024 Trump

promo handout

Promo image for edit-solar-storm-0424.

Election 2024 Pennsylvania

other

Hundreds gather for the Lost Voices of Fentanyl Rally in Washington, D.C.

staff

Wolfeboro Independence Day Parade with Special Guest Gov. Ron DeSantis

Respond to prefers-color-scheme dark in app web views

Follow section front redirects in Spectrum

Enable NLP source in PCS for load testing

Switch off the News Alerts Survey Widget when we have enough responses

Poll to determine if new LUF updates are available

Allows the winning A/B test variant to be turned on without Spectrum deployment

Show infinite scrolling sections in Assembler MultiView

Show option for NLP article summaries in Action Bar

Show NLP summaries collection recirc on article pages

A general feature flag for Recipe Features that aren't yet released

Feature flag for media team features that aren't yet released

Use new Orca video player for preroll plugin in Spectrum

Show the snow tracker (instead of the heat tracker) on Spectrum

Trump allies call trial a ‘sham.’ Public opinion isn’t cooperating.

Biden and Trump agree to CNN debate in June, ABC faceoff in September

 Key Senate matchups set for November in Maryland, West Virginia

Puppy abandoned with heart-rending note is adopted, named Minerva

Man, 91, shocks tiny firehouse with $500K gift: ‘Nobody knew how much I’d saved’

Retired cop meets abandoned baby he helped 23 years ago: ‘What are the odds?’

Look to the cloud to protect the life documents saved on your computer

Can you spot bad financial advice on TikTok? Take our quiz.

5 myths about Social Security as the program faces a funding crisis

States see legalized sports betting as a tax windfall — but at what cost?

Haiti’s plight is a case study in the ‘responsibility to protect’

No, Apple, people do not want tech to crush everything in its path 

Ask Amy: My mom lied about how much she supported my sister

Carolyn Hax: Aging mom’s increasing anxiety robs child of a valued confidante

Miss Manners: Dinner host hates clearing the table for guests

Biden’s false claim that inflation was 9 percent when he took office

Did Obamacare ‘massively’ increase the cost of health care?

RFK Jr.’s ‘history lesson’ on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine flunks the fact test

Some cruise prices are about to get a little more clear

When budget flights actually make good budget sense

Tired of overcrowded national parks? Here’s how to go backcountry camping.

U.S. offers aid as Zelensky drops foreign trip due to Russian advance

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico shot and gravely injured

A mountainous country loses its last glacier

The new dining reality: Smaller groups and shorter weeks

Commanders will open at Tampa Bay and close against the Cowboys; here’s everything we know

The 26 best new restaurants in the D.C. area

Netflix will air NFL’s Christmas games, a major step for streaming service

Sam Feist, longtime CNN executive, will become CEO of C-SPAN

Michael Cohen testimony ties Donald Trump to hush money payment

Senators studied AI for a year. Critics call the result ‘pathetic.’

Even remote and hybrid work can burn you out. Here’s how to avoid it.

How America tried and failed to stay White

After a borderland shootout, a 100-year-old battle for the truth

D.C.’s secret garden

Angela Alsobrooks Wins Maryland Senate Seat 

Patrick Semansky

On this Independence Day, we should reaffirm the twin pillars of democracy: Voters (not the mob) pick their leaders, and elected leaders (not unelected judges) make policy decisions for which they are held accountable. Just as we need to preserve the sanctity of elections (by prosecuting coup instigators), democracy defenders need to address judicial radicals’ gross distortion of our system, resulting in the current Supreme Court’s subversion of democracy.

Unhinged from judicial standards, the court now roves through the policy landscape, overturning decades of law and reordering Americans’ lives and institutions. It upends women’s health, revamps college admissions, snatches student aid from millions and redefines public accommodations (allowing egregious discrimination). In aggrandizing power, the court illegitimately dominates policymaking, undermining democracy to an extent we have not seen in nearly 100 years. (<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/02/supreme-court-conservative-rulings/622050/" target=_blank>Ronald Brownstein</a> pointed out that similar constitutional collisions in the 1850s and 1930s took a civil war or threat of court-packing to resolve.)

Something must change if we want to preserve rule by the people’s elected leaders responsible to voters.

As a preliminary matter, it is essential to identify the problem. As morally and politically offensive as Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action, LGBTQ+ discrimination and student debt forgiveness might be to millions of Americans, merely criticizing the court’s result is misguided and unproductive. The task is to expose the court’s disintegration as a legitimate judicial body and note its emergence as a supreme right-wing policymaker. When the court operates on an ends-justify-the-means basis, shreds legal doctrine and dishonestly presents the facts, critics should not play whack-a-mole, decrying each individual rejection of widespread American values. In doing so, the court negates self-government.

One telltale sign that the justices have become partisan politicians: their refusal to adopt mandatory ethics rules, which destroys the essence of judicial impartiality that is the root of their legitimacy. When judges cease to eliminate conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof, they appear indistinguishable from politicians wined and dined in rarefied settings by lobbyists. The stench of financial corruption, coupled with justices’ intemperate rants in partisan settings and in <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda" target=_blank>op-eds</a>, convinces Americans that the justices are partisan players out to score points for their own side.

Moreover, the court strays out of its constitutional lane when it refuses to follow consistent rules of construction and honestly address cases’ facts. When, for example, the majority casts aside stare decisis (as in the affirmative action case) without admitting it or refuses to apply the test for departing from precedent (as in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization), it is simply muscling its way to desired outcomes because it has the votes.

Worse, cases are now manufactured to create policy. The majority has made complete hash out of standing and concepts such as “case and controversy” to reach decisions it had no business deciding.

In the <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/09/third-party-standing-doctrine-shouldnt-block-lawsuits-challenging-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan/" target="_blank">student loan debt relief</a> case, the court created standing out of whole cloth. As <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf" target="_blank">Justice Elena Kagan wrote</a> in her dissent, “The requirement that the proper party — the party actually affected — challenge an action ensures that courts do not overstep their proper bounds. … Without that requirement, courts become ‘forums for the ventilation of public grievances’ — for settlement of ideological and political disputes.” Here the court deliberately ignored that the aggrieved party was not a litigant. Likewise, in the case of a web designer <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/30/303-creative-elenis-supreme-court-decision-lgbtq-rights/" target="_blank">worried about selling</a> her services to a gay couple (<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/01/supreme-court-colorado-website/" target="_blank">who appear</a> to be <a href="https://twitter.com/melissagira/status/1674395693249642499" target="_blank">fabricated</a>), the court <a href="https://twitter.com/SIfill_/status/1674955728753160195" target="_blank">defied every principle of standing</a>. When the court goes beyond actual cases and controversies to answer hypotheticals, it goes beyond its constitutional mandate.

And, worst of all, the newfangled “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-major-questions-doctrine.html" target="_blank">major questions doctrine</a>” allows the court to <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1458155/osha-case-shows-fluidity-of-major-questions-doctrine" target="_blank">subjectively decide</a> when the issue is of “major political salience” (whatever the court says it is); if so, the court demands the application at issue be specifically authorized by statute (a standard lawmakers somehow never meet in this court’s eyes). It has become a crutch whenever the court seeks to invalidate a program it doesn’t like. In <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/opinions/student-loan-ruling-shows-trumps-supreme-court-plan-litman/index.html" target="_blank">the student debt relief case</a>, the court reached the desired result by ignoring the word “waive” in the statute authorizing loan forgiveness to reach the finding that Congress hadn’t delegated power to, well, waive student debt. “The Court once again substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch — and the hundreds of millions of people they represent — in making this Nation’s most important, as well as most contested, policy decisions,” Kagan wrote.

The mumbo-jumbo “major questions doctrine” is not the stuff of judging. No wonder the chief justice got touchy when Kagan pointed out that the court “is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like student-loan relief.” What the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/83us36" target="_blank">Slaughter-House Cases</a> and substantive due process were to the New Deal-era right-wing court, the “major questions doctrine" is to the current court: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/us-supreme-court-rightwing-climate-crisis" target="_blank">a smokescreen</a> for enforcing <a href="https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&amp;context=law_econ_current" target="_blank">a right-wing agenda</a> (or vetoing a progressive one).

In departing from the authentic judicial review, the right-wing majority unsurprisingly produces results perfectly aligned with the right’s agenda on hot-button topics. (By the law of averages, its “analysis” should occasionally favor the other side.) When foretelling a case’s outcome or following the majority’s “reasoning” requires a crib sheet on GOP political aims, something is wrong.

And voters have figured out what’s going on. According to an <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-approve-supreme-court-decision-restricting-race-college/story?id=100580375" target="_blank">ABC News-Ipsos poll</a>, 53 percent “believe that the nation’s highest court rules mainly on the basis of their partisan political view rather than on the basis of the law (33%), while 14% say they don’t know.” Before the Dobbs opinion, a separate January 2022 poll showed that “38% of Americans believed that the justices rule mainly on the basis of law, versus 43% who believed that the court rules on the basis of their political views.”

The transformation of the court into a partisan player contradicts the central premise of democracy. We should reject the obtuse and naive argument that this court isn’t so bad because it <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/27/supreme-court-election-ruling-democracy/" target="_blank">didn’t entirely obliterate</a> Section 2 of the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/08/supreme-court-alabama-redistricting-voting-rights-act/" target="_blank">Voting Rights Act</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/27/supreme-court-moore-harper-isl/" target="_blank">declined to impose the outrageous independent state legislature doctrine</a>. Now is no time for self-delusion. Ending the right-wing majority’s intolerable war on self-government will require that the other two branches and the voters cut the court down to size. A single election or a single reform might not suffice. Cogent law review articles, informed public debate and exquisite dissents revealing that the right-wing judicial emperors have no clothes can assist reformers. Term limits, jurisdiction stripping, court expansion and ethics reform should be on the table. Simply put, if we want democracy to survive, each election must be a referendum on the court’s legitimacy.

On this Independence Day, which celebrates rebellion against a monarch lacking consent of the governed, it behooves us to dedicate ourselves to robust and authentic democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people — not by arrogant right-wing justices.

University of California at Berkeley, BA in history

University of California at Berkeley, JD

Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post. She is the author of “Resistance: How Women Saved Democracy from Donald Trump” and is host of the podcast Jen Rubin's "Green Room."

Jennifer Rubin

washpost

the-washington-post

Editorials

Columns

Guest opinions

Cartoons

Submit a guest opinion

Today's Opinions newsletter

Opinions

Sign up for the Prompt 2024 newsletter for opinions on the biggest questions in politics

Washington Post Opinions

The Washington Post Opinions section features opinion articles, op-eds, editorials by the Editorial Board, global opinions and letters to the editor on the issues of the day. Offerings include columns by Washington Post opinion writers, political cartoons by editorial cartoonists Ann Telnaes and Michael de Adder and podcasts by Jonathan Capehart.