The Supreme Court: "Who Needs Democracy When You Have Us?"

Grabbing power, dodging logic, and calling it "justice" when it suits them

Chief Justice John Roberts’s year-end report on the federal judiciary might as well have been titled “How Dare You.” His primary concern? That public officials have the audacity to criticize the judiciary, accusing judges of political bias. Roberts didn’t offer much defense for the Court’s actions—just a thinly veiled demand for silence under the guise of preserving institutional respect. But let’s not pretend his plea for civility was anything more than a smokescreen.

Let’s not mince words: the Supreme Court has earned every bit of scrutiny it’s getting. This isn’t a Court of judicial restraint or consistent philosophy—it’s a Court that deploys ideology and power grabs in equal measure, consolidating authority while dismantling every other branch and institution that might dare challenge it.

For all its talk of judicial principles, this Court has no coherent philosophy. Textualism, originalism, stare decisis—they’re deployed selectively to justify outcomes the majority has already decided it wants. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court ignored the Clean Air Act’s clear text to hobble the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions, inventing the “major questions doctrine” to impose its will. This wasn’t about interpreting statutory language—it was about ensuring that federal agencies couldn’t act effectively, especially when their actions conflict with the Court’s ideological preferences.

But ideology isn’t the whole story. The Court’s rulings reveal a broader, more insidious agenda: centralizing power in the Supreme Court itself. Every institution—Congress, the executive branch, the states, and even lower courts—has been systematically stripped of authority, with power flowing upward to the Justices. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court handed abortion regulation to states, but that wasn’t about federalism—it was about dismantling established rights. Meanwhile, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Court invalidated New York’s gun safety regulations, overriding state authority in favor of a newly invented constitutional right. States are empowered only when their actions align with the Court’s worldview; otherwise, they’re overruled.

The Court’s disdain for Congress is even more transparent. By limiting legislative authority to create new rights to those resembling 18th-century grievances, as it did in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Court has effectively frozen Congress in time. Data privacy, environmental protection, voting rights—if the Founders didn’t legislate on it, the Court doesn’t think Congress can either. And when Congress tries to delegate regulatory authority to federal agencies, as it did with the EPA, the Court steps in to demand explicit, granular instructions, knowing full well that such specificity is impossible in a legislative body as dysfunctional as ours.

Federal agencies fare no better. In West Virginia v. EPA, the Court didn’t just limit the EPA—it redefined the rules for every regulatory body. The “major questions doctrine” ensures that agencies can’t take significant actions without explicit congressional approval, rendering them toothless. It’s a doctrine designed not to interpret the Constitution but to obstruct governance, ensuring that agencies tasked with addressing modern challenges like climate change and workplace safety are paralyzed by the Court’s demands.

Lower courts have been reduced to spectators in this power grab. Through its reliance on the shadow docket, the Supreme Court has bypassed traditional procedures to issue sweeping rulings without full arguments or transparency. Vaccine mandates? Gone. Gerrymandered electoral maps? Approved. This isn’t judicial oversight—it’s micromanagement, with the Supreme Court asserting itself as the final word on everything, regardless of whether lower courts have been allowed to do their jobs.

Even the states, often a supposed bastion of conservative deference, aren’t safe. The Court’s rulings have systematically undercut state authority when it suits its agenda. Dobbs handed abortion rights to state legislatures, but when states like California tried to enforce neutral pandemic restrictions or New York sought to regulate firearms, the Court intervened to impose its own preferences. And let’s not forget Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, where the Court forced public schools to allow employee-led prayer, rewriting facts and precedent alike to align with its ideological goals. The message is clear: states can have power, but only when the Supreme Court agrees with how they’re using it.

What ties all of this together isn’t just ideology but a deliberate effort to consolidate power in the Supreme Court. By neutering Congress, paralyzing agencies, sidelining lower courts, and cherry-picking when states get to exercise authority, the Court has positioned itself as the ultimate arbiter of all contentious issues. This isn’t a judiciary acting as one branch among equals—it’s a judiciary that views itself as the only branch that matters.

Roberts’s plea for civility isn’t about protecting the judiciary’s integrity—it’s about shielding the Court from accountability. Criticism, he warns, undermines trust. But the real threat to trust in the judiciary isn’t public outrage; it’s a Court that has abandoned any pretense of restraint, consistency, or respect for democratic governance. This Supreme Court isn’t interpreting the Constitution—it’s rewriting it to suit its preferences while siphoning power away from every other institution. The criticism Roberts fears isn’t dangerous; it’s necessary. Because a Court that answers only to itself is the most dangerous entity of all.