A lot of ink has gone into analysis and criticism of the recent decisions from our current Supreme Court justices. On the one hand, that criticism of SCOTUS is more than warranted. On the other hand, moaning and wringing our hands about it won’t accomplish anything.

The Roberts 6

That’s because the Roberts 6 radical justices have twisted the United States Constitution into knots to arrive at the decisions they wanted. And those decisions really strain belief. They find justification for their positions and beliefs that doesn’t exist in the Constitution. Worse, they deny plain words in the Constitution when they contradict the justices’ beliefs or when they just don’t like them.

SCOTUS and Us vs Them

Here’s what the Roberts 6 Supreme Court justices says about US vs THEM:

US:

• Money equals speech
• Corporations are people
• Your civil rights depend on what state you live in
• Motive is irrelevant in a crime and may not be considered in a court of law
• Presidents are above the law
• A bribe isn’t a bribe if you receive it after the fact
• In some states women may have fewer rights than a fetus or an assault rifle
• Voting rights are not guaranteed
• Homeless people may be considered criminals

THEM:

• The Constitution means what we say it means
• We will recuse ourselves when and if we want to – and we never want to
• Bribing us is okay if we receive the bribe after we rule on a case
• Soliciting a bribe is okay when it’s just among friends
• We don’t have to report those bribes if we “forget” to do so. And we have bad memories
• As lawyers, we understand science better than the scientists
• Only we decide what’s official and what’s not
• We will tell you who’s above the law
• We can lie under oath without fault or recrimination
• If you try to limit or control us, we will threaten you

If some, or all, of this sounds ridiculous—not to mention dangerous—that’s because it is. SCOTUS been compromised and corrupted.

Letter to The Wall Street Journal

Recently The Wall Street Journal published an editorial that attempted to minimize Project 2025 and the threat it poses to our American democracy. One sentence caught my eye. I wrote a letter to the editors but they, of course, did not publish it. Here’s what I said:

“RE your editorial“Who’s Afraid of Project 2025,” I noted this comment: “Americans don’t want to be ruled by a permanent governing class that doesn’t answer to voters.”

“This is exactly why so many Americans today hold the Supreme Court in such low regard. The Roberts 6 radical justices have proven themselves eager to rule as a permanent governing class. They ignore stare decisis, overturn precedents, write decisions that make little legal sense, and appropriate powers to themselves that previously belonged to the executive and legislative branches.

Bribes and Gifts

“Several justices take extravagant bribes but at least one has solicited them. They refuse to recuse themselves even when the conflict of interest in a case before the court is clear to anyone. They also sneer at the idea of submitting themselves to a code of conduct that any judge in a lower court would take for granted.

“The SCOTUS justices are a permanent authority because they hold life terms and may serve until they die, regardless of competence or compromise. And they answer to no one. Not to the voters, certainly. And not to the President or either house of Congress.

Packing the Court

“The Roberts 6 justices have been installed to pack the court so they can deflect and negate any challenges to the many, many parts of Project 2025 that are unconstitutional. One may read your editorial and conclude that The Wall Street Journal editors are being willfully naïve about this plan to take over the government. The alternative is to understand that you, along with the Roberts 6, are part of it.”

Reforming SCOTUS

All of this is why President Biden has proposed reforming the Supreme Court in three ways:

1. Imposing term limits of 28 years of active service on the justices with new justices appointed every two years
2. Imposing an enforceable ethics code on the bench
3. Passing a constitutional amendment to block the Court’s presidential immunity ruling

I, personally, would also increase the size of the court to match the number of Federal Appellate Courts. That number was originally nine, so one justice could oversee one appellate court. Currently, there are 13 Federal Appellate Courts, which means some justices have to double up. Adding four more justices would return the court to its original plan.

Going a Long Way

While the first two proposals have a chance of coming to fruition if the Democrats win the White House and the Congress, the third is a stretch. It would also take a lot of time. Nevertheless, the first two reforms would go a long way toward bringing the Supreme Court back toward the center and restoring Americans’ confidence in its rulings.

No longer can the people of the United States turn a blind eye to the Supreme Court’s blatant bias and corruption. We have gone beyond the point where we can continue ignoring their imperial tendencies. Let’s take action now to enforce what limits we can.