Why the “Conservative” Supreme Court Has Been a Complete Failure
One third of the current US Supreme Court has been appointed by Donald Trump. This statistic is continually cited with celebration by conservatives and horror among liberals. A primary reason for this is because Trump’s Supreme Court nominations represent the only part of his legacy which remains effectively untouchable. While executive orders can be overturned, border wall plans can be scuttled, generals can now balk orders, he can even be maligned by history as a convicted felon, each Supreme Court justice is still nominated for life.
This is compounded by fact that the Trump-appointed justices are all relatively young. Gorsuch is 56 years old, Kavanaugh is 59, and Barrett is 52. For reference, former Justice Antonin Scalia served until he was 79. Former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg served until she was 87. Short of death or sudden retirement, all three will remain on the bench for decades, deciding landmark cases in an era of unprecedented division in the country. Given the 220-year-old Marbury v. Madison standard of judicial review, they have the power to declare what government actions are constitutional, thereby directing America’s political and cultural destiny for decades or even centuries to come.
Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have also shifted the nominal balance on the Court, from a 5-4 liberal majority into a 6-3 conservative majority. American liberals, with some justification, fear judicial retribution and the undoing of decades of liberal precedents. Indeed, for many decades, the Supreme Court has been a major bulwark for the progressive agenda in America.
It has been the Supreme Court which has mandated many of the liberal social tastes which have shaped today’s Overton window. The half century federal protection for abortion came from Roe v. Wade (1973). Gay marriage comes from Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Legal protections for sodomy were initiated and bolstered by Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Segregation being labeled a de facto moral evil comes from Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Brown in particular has received a quasi-religious sacralization, with some constitutional scholars alleging it has the mystical power to invalidate all past or future constitutional methodology. This is just a small list of examples, suffice it to say that the Court is one of the first sources transforming public opinion on divisive issues.
When these radical Supreme Court cases were decided, the majority of people did not support them. The Court had effectively legislated their liberal, progressive morality, their ideological lens on top of the Constitution to achieve their desired ends. During these sensitive periods, as controversial decisions are enforced and implemented, one of the only ideas which kept America together was the common view held by Americans that regardless of any outcome, judges are applying the law dispassionately and without bias. This is in part as result of a widespread preconventional sense of morality: a belief that only things which are illegal are immoral, and therefore anything legal must be approved by the government and de facto moral. While this is troubling for those with personal codes of ethics and moral conviction, those who do what is right regardless of legality are the exception, not the rule. They are in fact the reason the law exists.
While the naive view of dispassionate judges has eroded in recent years, the vast majority of Americans still respect the rule of law, and begrudgingly assent to its highest Court. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, with whatever remaining trust in the judiciary now benefitting Republicans, the hope of many right-wing Americans would be a positive change for their interests. Unfortunately, as Republicans know all too well, their nominal allies in power rarely have the will. Is anyone confident this Supreme Court would courageously vote to pass any landmark conservative decisions, ones equivalent to how shocking and controversial Roe v. Wade was in the 70s, or Brown v. Board in the 60s?
Now that it has been several years since all three justices have been placed on the bench, we can view their track records across a spectrum of conservative issues. Overall, despite taking on several significant cases, they have done much to disappoint.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022), the fifty-year-old Roe precedent was overturned, finally ending the constitutional farce of a federal right to an abortion. Lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina in 2023 overturned affirmative action in higher education. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022), the Court bolstered 2nd Amendment rights pertaining to conceal carry against unconstitutional and subjective “special need for self-defense” rules.
Their most consequential decision thus far came in early March of 2024, when the Court unanimously ruled that Trump cannot be removed from state ballots for the presidential election on account of the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. While conservatives can celebrate this decision and the others as apparent victories, it should not be so easily forgotten that half of the nation’s people, including many high-ranking judges is various state Supreme Courts, were perfectly comfortable robbing 75 million Americans of the right to electing their preferred candidate up until the moment the decision was announced.
These positives just mentioned are noteworthy, however do not present an honest or complete picture. It is a tactic of abusers to constantly do wrong, then for the abuser to expect and receive gratitude for temporarily abating the abuse they enforce. The faith America First supporters and other right-wingers have in the judiciary should not be restored on the basis that the judges were merely not complicit in, to use the previous example, the most obvious witch hunt of a political figure in American history. More needs to be demanded from our judicial branch.
Taken in sum, the Court has not delivered the kind of overwhelming change America First conservatives had hoped for years ago. The media has described this new Roberts Court as “conservative—but not MAGA”, in other words, weak, safe, ineffectual, and conservative in name only.
This has been borne out by several of the Court’s other recent decisions, including within their nominal victories. Invariably, they either surrender to liberal establishment principles, or draft conservative opinions laden with asterisks and other circumscriptions.
Take the case of affirmative action in higher education, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (2023) and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2023). While the rule has technically been overturned, the practical effects are being willfully ignored by many universities. Just one day after the decision, former President Claudine Gay of Harvard released a video stating their intention to circumvent the ruling:
“We will comply with the Court’s decision, but it does not change our values. We continue to believe, deeply, that a thriving diverse intellectual community is essential to academic excellence…”
In other words, the university’s mission to maximize diversity remains, despite being explicitly labeled unconstitutional by the highest Court in the land. As a workaround, many universities have begun issuing diversity statements in addition to the typical personal essay. Rather than being selected for your race explicitly, one is selected on the basis of their personal experiences which themselves can be impacted by one’s racial minority status. In other words, you cannot be selected because you are black, but you can be selected for your background experience of racism in American as a black person. It is an obvious proxy for race delivered in the most blatant terms.
Universities were also one of the more aggressive proponents of the vaccine mandate, a critical issue facing conservatives during the pandemic. Back in 2021, the world was still firmly in the grip of COVID hysteria. Vaccine mandates were becoming ubiquitous in the military, private employment, and higher education. Joe Biden launched an executive order in September of that year mandating the vaccine for all federal employees, over 2.2 million people. This was done in tandem with another executive order from the Biden administration that tried to extend its power to also force those who contract with the federal government to be vaccinated.
Among many aggrieved parties who refused to comply, a group of students from Indianna University attempted to protest the newly minted vaccine mandate. After the case was appealed for emergency relief, newly appointed Justice Barrett refused to even hear the case, leaving the mandate in place. Barrett refused to provide reasoning for her decision to reject the case, although it is safe to assume that the controversial nature of the topic made her less willing to stick her neck out.
Now in 2024, the mainstream has finally come around to what conservatives knew for years: we can pretty much treat COVID like the flu.
Additionally, data on the Covid vaccine has confirmed the official claims of many conservative pundits since its initial rollout. A recent study has concluded that, “COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death.” The study also found through VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) that since the advent of the COVID vaccine myocarditis reports exploded, “223 times higher than the average of all vaccines combined for the past 30 years.” How many lives could have been saved if the Court took a more critical stance against these hasty vaccine mandates? The Court could have legitimized skepticism that experimental MRNA therapy, which has never been widely tested, was being forced unconstitutionally on millions of Americans.
The new conservative Court was also famously weak during the peak of the stolen 2020 US presidential election, another critical issue for conservatives. The Court rejected the Texas lawsuit which attempted to stop key swing states, which had been polluted by shady election practices, from casting their electoral votes. Undoubtedly scared out of their wits from even the possibility of appearing biased in favor of a conservative for once, the justices sats on their hands and delivered brief statements about procedural issues.
In 2022 with Moore v. Harper, the Court sided 6-3 against the “independent state legislature theory” This theory was one of the legal arguments used by the Trump campaign which could have counteracted the corrupt election practices and theft of the 2020 presidential election. This theory was based on the historical fact that the Constitution does not state how the election of presidents is meant to function. The only provision related to this function grants power exclusively to the state legislatures:
Back in 2020, state courts were unilaterally making new decisions about how the presidential elections were going to operate. Many of these new decisions were made under the pretext of accommodating the COVID-19 pandemic, however in practice led to significant statistical anomalies and improbable voter “turnout” in key swing states and districts. These measures also allowed for massive numbers of mail-in ballots to be harvested, cast, and counted, even after election day. The effect these new election rules had were manifold, but they all helped serve what Time Magazine celebrated as a shadow campaign to prevent Trump from winning reelection.
The Moore v. Harper decision has now killed the alternative electors theory as an avenue which could otherwise have been explored in 2024. This is despite the fact that as Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out in his dissent, it was by no means necessary for the Court to reject. Additionally, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett both sided with the liberals to deliver this defeat to President Trump. Once again, the liberal justices moved swiftly to achieve their ideological goals, and rather than the conservatives justices working together to resist, they sheepishly align with the liberals, likely fearing accusations of bias if they resist.
While the Court’s majority opinion, alongside the media, alleged that a major concern of this theory would be unchecked gerrymandering, or imperiling democracy, the real threats would have been to the regime. If an alternative slate of electors could be chosen by the Republican legislatures, which is their constitutional right, it would have guaranteed Trump his second term. It also would have destroyed the now current election meta of mass mail-in ballot harvesting, and the normalization of election results being determined days and even weeks after an election, greatly increasing the possibility of mishandlings and impropriety.
If instead the theory had been debated or accepted as plausible by the Court, it would now, just months from the 2024 election, would have been Donald Trump’s veritable ace in the hole. Instead, willfully ignorant of mass ballot harvesting schemes or unchecked drop boxes, the Court again refuses to hear the genuine concern and growing distrust of the 75 million Americans who voted for Trump back in 2020.
In recent months, the Supreme Court has taken up two cases from Florida and Texas relating to tech censorship. Both states are attempting to challenge the clear monopoly which American tech platforms have over the modern, digital public square. To put their influence into perspective, X has 368 million monthly active users. Facebook has 3 billion monthly active users. Google has 1.5 billion monthly active users. There are no other platforms as ubiquitously used to disseminate information across the world. This has raised concerns in America about freedom of speech being censored online by a small handful of unelected private companies.
What prevents a social media platform from working in tandem with the government, not by coercion but instead with consent, to suppress certain narratives which threaten elite power? The current answer is nothing, and this scenario has now played out countless times, with one of the more prominent political examples being the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Despite the laptop being authentic- containing explicit photographs and messages which implicate President Biden in an influence-peddling operation, the story was throttled in the crib.
The censoring of the story was a baldly partisan effort to prevent the story from influencing the outcome of the 2020 presidential race, which at the time was only a few weeks away. The New York Post, the first network to break the story, was censored on Twitter, with a phony pretext that the laptop was Russian disinformation. This pretext was delivered to big tech by the government, who worked in lockstep to help ensure Biden’s 2020 victory.
Currently, these tech mafias are protected by Section 230 of Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields them from liability from their 3rd party content (the user’s posts). The tech companies, along with their corrupt lobbyists who write these policies, resent the possibility that they will either be held liable for the content on their platform (effectively bankrupting them), or will be forced to allow all viewpoints. Much like the ongoing situation with the sale of TikTok, when free speech is made truly free online, it results in an explosion of criticisms towards Israel and the discussion of White genocide among other blacklisted topics. This is the worst nightmare scenario for the corrupt federal government. Governments work with big tech to promote narratives which are beneficial to their agenda and censor any opposition. Depending on the outcome of the Florida and Texas cases, free speech could either be federally enshrined for Americans online, or big tech companies will snuff it out indefinitely.
Once again, a Trump-appointed justice provides little reassurance. Justice Kavanaugh has spoken previously on similar legal themes to those relevant in these Florida and Texas suits. The New York Times reported:
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh read a sentence from a 1976 campaign finance decision that has long been a touchstone for him. “The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment,” he said, indicating that he rejected the states’ argument that they may regulate the fairness of public debate in private settings.
When he is referring to “private settings” in this context, Justice Kavanaugh means these multi-billion-dollar platforms which disseminate information to hundreds of millions of people every day. According to Justice Kavanaugh, these impersonal tech companies have the right to censor you. Your free speech right as an individual is inferior to the right of a government protected monopoly to censor you. You have the big tech companies, the media, and the federal government on one side, all supporting censorship, and on the other you have the American people. Justice Kavanaugh, alongside the liberal Justices, all side with the former, against you.
This is despite the dozens of examples where social media companies clearly and unfairly stifled speech citing misinformation that later was found to be true. The Capitol Riot, BLM, the efficacy of the COVID vaccine, Ivermectin, the Hunter Biden laptop, ballot harvesting, 2020 election fraud, the list goes on. Grassroots criticism of all these topics were censored when discussion about them mattered the most.
The latest news on immigration with respect to the Supreme Court has been equally dismal. In January of 2024 the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Federal government’s ability to remove razor wire from the Texas-Mexico border. This measure was taken by Texas to slow the invasion of our country by millions of illegal aliens. The decision, conveniently, was not elaborated on by the Court.
For five of the Justice of the Supreme Court (including Trump-appointed Barrett), the Federal government has the right to deprive states from protecting the nation from third-world invasion. They shockingly find no conflict with say, the oath of office, which the president and all elected officials take to protect the Constitution (and the people represented by it). For the Court this is nothing more than another academic brainteaser, with the looming existential threat posed by mass immigration brushed aside or perhaps unconsidered entirely.
A few months later, in March of 2024, the Court sent out a subsequent order that the Texas state government could not detain or arrest illegal aliens until the lower court made its determination on the issue. This order was then suddenly reversed, and now finally Texas is permitted to arrest those they suspect are entering the country illegally.
Once more, this appearance of victory wilts under scrutiny. The law in question, SB 4, which was signed back in December by Governor Abbott, is utterly toothless. The penalty for illegal entry or re-entry is between 180 days jailtime and 20 years in prison. The maximum sentence is certainly not going to be issued in the majority of cases. As a result, the delusional line of reasoning is that these millions of illegal migrants will be randomly stopped (somehow, somewhere, at some time) and for it to be discovered that they are living here illegally. Next, the illegal in question has the choice to go to jail or promise to leave.
Worded another way, they can serve their likely minimal sentence, then be let back out into America, or promise to leave, and then stay anyway. There is not even an effort to catch or track those who are here illegally to enforce this paper handcuffs policy. While none of this policy’s weakness is the fault of the Supreme Court, the point here is that conservative media so often belies the real outcomes and effects of these conservative Court “victories”.
On all the most critical issues facing America today, the Trump-appointed justices have floundered. Even when they win, they shoot themselves in the foot, either not going far enough or leaving room for the government and other entities to skate around the rules.
The conservative Robert’s Court, much like the current state of the GOP, never capitalizes on the power it acquires. They constantly cede ground to progressive social views, and they never take their own side. This is completely contrary to the fanatical dedication of liberal politicians, judges, and justices.
When liberal justices enter positions of power, they make sweeping ideological decisions for the sake of their team. Take the infamous case of Roe v. Wade. Since its inception Roe was a highly divisive and controversial ruling. The decision always rested on shaky logic, reading into convoluted ideas about penumbras emanating from the Constitution, and that the right to kill your own unborn child is somehow related to privacy, but also disconnected by the right to life espoused in the Declaration of Independence. Even pro-choice advocates admit that the reasoning in the decision was indefensible from the start. It survived as long as it did purely because of the ideological stranglehold on the Court. Despite all this polarization caused by the formerly liberal Court tens of millions of Americans, who were on average far more religious than they are today, simply were forced to stomach it.
Now, based on the opinion of the new Supreme Court, the decision in Roe was so indefensible that the standard had to be eliminated, but, the decision ought to go to the states. Additionally, that decision can somehow be made fairly after half a century of radical feminism has already done its damage, swaying public opinion and normalizing the genocide of unborn children.
Even this half measure was deemed too radical and unnecessary by Chief Justice Roberts. While he voted in favor of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in his concurrence he lamented that the majority went as far as overruling Roe, and instead should have decided the question more narrowly and saved that broader question for a later date.
Roberts’ stance begins to unmask this obvious flaw in modern judicial thinking. When explaining why he thinks the decision should have been even more narrow, he writes:
“But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are cases that warrant an exception,”
Nothing better encapsulates weak conservative jurisprudence than this. Read another way, if a radical judicial activist “makes a mistake” and makes abortion a federally protected constitutional right for 50 years, that is simply the cost of doing business. However, when a decision is politically beneficial to conservatives, or God forbid a moral imperative to protect the health and safety of our unborn American children, we should restrain ourselves firmly within the boundaries set by these same radical liberal judicial activists from decades past. The liberal justices and judges plant a wild unruly precedent, and more conservative justices are only to prune and maintain whatever freakish outgrowths result.
Why is there such a weak mindset in these opinions? Why are conservative justices so impotent and afraid when they have the power to move the Overton Window rightward? The answer traces back to a far greater issue in conservative American jurisprudence: originalism. Today, conservative and originalist are considered synonymous terms. They are mirror images of the political and legal worlds. If a conservative wants to show their party loyalty within the context of judicial decisions, one only has to say that they believe in an originalist interpretation to be earmarked as a conservative Republican.
This legal philosophy has been around for roughly 40 years, and in that time has exploded in popularity to become the most dominant force in all conservative legal circles. The problem with originalism is that the theory itself will always be unequipped to defend its own system of values outside of liberalism, and that comes by design.
Originalism was borne out of a very particular historical context. Between the 1950s to mid-1970s, progressive dogma dominated the Court. Some of the most progressive Supreme Court decisions come from this era. Conservative lawyers at the time had far less footing than today to argue their beliefs against this overwhelming mandate for liberal progressivism and so called “living tree” constitutionalism.
Their solution came by appealing not to the ideals of the future, but to the past. They argued that the interpretation of the Constitution which mattered most was the one established and espoused by the founders. They argued this would leave the text in a fixed, stable state, effectively halting radical progressivism and preventing it from outgrowing all of the principles and traditions of the past. This pitch was an extraordinary success, and allowed originalism to grow into what it is today. It has become so persuasive that even liberal justices and judges make appeals to originalism when making decisions.
This begs the question of what originalism actually is, and how it is applied. Originalism, which also goes by many other smaller titles, argues that to find the true meaning of a statute, or law, we must discover and apply the intention of the drafters of each rule at the time of its enactment. As to the true meaning and usage of words and terms, originalists also say that we must interpret those terms in their “original public meaning”.
So much depends on the so called “original public meaning”, one would expect that a definition must be universally agreed upon, and universally applied by conservatives. Neither are true. Firstly, the founders themselves did not agree on singular meanings of certain phrases, or the intent of policies. While there can certainly be meanings which are more or less likely, that is precisely the issue: it remains uncertain and can always be manipulated by subjective interpretation.
Additionally, originalists do not have a consistent view on something as fundamental as how to interpret the words on the paper, the positive statutory text. Originalists are split between the expected application of the founders, or the broad principles found with the text’s semantic content. Both are incomplete, deeply flawed choices.
Expected Applications of the Founders
If the expected application is given primacy, it can artificially restrict the text. One example is the 8th Amendment (banning cruel and unusual punishment). The founding generation believed hanging and death by firing squads to be neither cruel nor unusual. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the founders thought that their interpretation of laws, or in this case punishments, would be unchangeable, or that future generations would never alter their views as technology, temperaments, and politics changed. This is to say that if the “original public meaning” is taken to mean the literal, practicable examples the founders viewed as legitimate, it precludes any possibility of improving or altering public tastes, despite living in a vastly different world.
General Principles in Semantic Content
The second choice is reading at a higher level of generality, going after the principles behind the words. Using the same 8th Amendment example, an Originalist interpretation would mean a ban on any punishments that are or could be deemed cruel or unusual in our contemporary time. This interpretation is even more subjective, and begs yet another the question: what level of generality is that principle to be understood? Once again, there is no limiting rule. The text can be, and already has been, read into with such absurdly broad interpretations that the words can be stretched to fit any definition, including radically progressive views.
Take the famous Bostock v. Clayton County ruling in 2020. This case was decided by the conservative Roberts Court and is considered an explicitly originalist decision. Despite this, the ruling of the Court dramatically changed the original public meaning of the term “sex” to include sexual orientations retroactively into the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In other words, an originalist Court, giving an originalist opinion, written by Trump-appointed Justice Gorsuch, a champion of originalism, promoted a view that would not match the original public meaning of any voters or representatives at the time of that bill’s enactment in 1964. The entire point of originalism was to stop this kind of radical reinterpretation of the static, original public meaning of terms into a progressive lens. If originalism can allow for this kind of an outcome, it shows that in practice originalism prohibits nothing. One can remain the most dogmatic liberal in all their views and goals, and still accurately be called an originalist. The concept has been completely hollowed out, and its theoretical structure made such an outcome inevitable.
Progressives have used this confusion to their advantage, and like wolves in sheep’s clothing have merely moved behind this rhetorical shield of originalism to push the same radical agenda they have always had. In a tired display of irony, originalists have foolishly reframed this deathblow as positive. A famous phrase uttered as a victory cry among originalists is that “we are all originalists [now]”, The phrase comes from Justice Elena Kagan, while making a statement at her confirmation hearing before being appointed to the Supreme Court.
When the phrase is invoked, the implication is meant that originalism, by virtue of its self-congratulatory arrogance, has won in the fair marketplace of ideas. The full statement, which is almost never highlighted, and certainly never given a critical eye, betrays an entirely different meaning. Taken in context, it is clear that Kagan is pointing out what many liberals have begun to realize: that if you interpret the original meaning in the loosest and most general sense, you can get the text to defend any contemporary (IE, progressive liberal) good, all while remaining a nominal originalist.
This is why the conservative Court has disappointed so many Republican voters and Trump supporters. The main method that the Court employs is originalism, a legal philosophy utterly unequipped to challenge liberalism, which is what is required in 2024, and beyond.
For those hesitant to imagine a stronger judiciary enforcing conservative, even religious morality as such, consider that the opposite, enforcing radical and destructive liberal morality, has been unimpeded for more than a century. Their hyper progressive liberal jurisprudence centers around changing the laws to force their morality on everyone else. Look at Roe v. Wade, or even Brown v. Board. These decisions were deeply controversial, uncomfortable, and actively resisted by the majority of the public. The liberal Courts did not care. They were the embodiment of judicial activism. We suffer decades of consequences, and as a result they have become normalized in the minds of preceding generations of Americans. Perhaps a change of course is finally in order.
The most unfortunate fact about this new Supreme Court is that the writing has been on the wall from the beginning. We were never going to get the kind of loyal judicial activists, a right-wing RBG, that we desperately needed. Our judges are hand-picked and preapproved by groups like the Federalist Society and the other Neo-conservative thinktanks and NGOs of the past. They are never going to send the kind of genius intellect or radical visionary who actually wants to pull the nation in a more rightward direction. These new Trump-appointed Justices came prepackaged with unsettling baggage and red flags.
In her hearing to be appointed as a Justice, Amy Coney Barrett detailed the fact that she cried when she heard that George Floyd died. The super predator, porn star, career criminal, and drug addict who inspired fiery nation-wide riots, George Floyd. This is the self-professed behavior of a conservative justice on the Supreme Court. Is this a tough, rational mind that can actually steer America away from existential threats and controversial subjects like White genocide? Replacement migration has already occurred in Justice Barrett’s own family, as she has adopted two children from Haiti, a nation recently infamous for its cannibal gangs taking over the country’s failed government. Would Justice Barrett be more likely to have a strong critical stance against people from a country run by violent cannibals entering the country as refugees? Or would her sympathy lean toward something akin to the constitutionality of mass 3rd world migration going on uninterrupted? Just this year she already voted with the liberal justices to stop Texas from installing border protections on the US-Mexico border, despite widely known reports of drugs, crime, and human trafficking which is assisted and facilitated by the federal government’s open border policy.
Justice Kavanaugh, groomed at elite Yale and then Yale Law School, has signaled that multi-billion-dollar tech monopolies actually have the 1st Amendment right to censor free speech online, potentially dooming freedom of expression on the internet for a generation or more. Kavanaugh also served as a clerk for Judge Stapleton during the time he wrote the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) a landmark case which doubled down on the Roe precedent. It is well known that clerks assist in legal research for the judges they serve under, and even help the justices write the drafts of their decisions. Is it possible that despite his alleged Catholic background he assisted one of the most pro-abortion decisions in American history? It is certainly a thought for speculation.
It was the Trump-appointed Justice Gorsuch that expanded sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, including transgenderism in the Bostock case. He is also a radical liberal advocate for Native American rights. One article from the New Yorker went as far as to say, “[Gorsuch] doesn’t just join with the liberals on the bench when it comes to tribal rights; he often seems to lead them.” A writer for the New York Times published a piece in 2023 about Justice Gorsuch’s longstanding commitment to Tribal Rights, noting several examples from past opinions about the rhetorical lengths he goes to defend continental Americans:
“All of that,” he wrote, “is in keeping with the Constitution’s original design.”
Would Justice Gorsuch ever speak with such passion or pride for the rights of White Americans to grow in their White, Christian culture, which has been America’s bedrock for four-centuries? Given America’s mass migration crisis, with Whites rapidly becoming a minority, would he pen the parallel right of White communities to “resist fading into the twilight of history”?
As the Court flounders more and more on fundamental issues, Americans become more and more pessimistic about their prospects. Ironically, the Chief Justice of the current Court, Justice Roberts, has spent his entire tenure trying to keep the declining credibility of the Court from cratering in the same manner as the executive and legislative branches.
What Justice Roberts fails to realize is that this is an impossible task: he will never please everybody. We live in a divided, confused country. One half believes abortion is a sacred right, and the other beliefs it is a genocide of unborn children. This same stark contrast is seen with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, climate change policy, immigration, policing and a hundred other issues. Any principled position necessarily needs to adhere to one or another set of principles, as they are mutually exclusive. In favoring one, you implicitly discredit the other, to the ire of about half the nation. Much like Roberts’ equivalents in the legislative branch, rather than shoulder the unpopularity of a decision liberals do not like, and cater to your own supportive partisans, he makes concessions to the radical progressive status quo, believing that he is making some kind of enlightened centrist compromise. What Justice Roberts no doubt views as moderating, everyone else sees rightly as cowardice.
He also fails to acknowledge why people’s faith in institutions, including the courts, are declining. The shortest answer is that they are corrupt, and everyone knows they are just as political as every other branch. People have become deeply pessimistic towards institutions whose power does not come from the people, but rather by way of rich and powerful elites. They hire the best lawyers and lobbyists to fight for whatever outcome best serves their current agenda, even to the detriment of the American nation. This includes these lobbying groups or other elite thinktanks writing the laws themselves, which are then enforced by the swamp judges they helped groom and nominate.
The judges, just like the other branches of government, are all selected from ivy league universities and other grooming institutions. They are already vetted to be docile and willing tools for the American Regime’s interests. If there was any radical conservative with judicial aspirations, they would never be allowed within 100 miles of DC, let alone nominated to the Supreme Court.
This judicial dereliction is a multigenerational problem, and as such will require a multi-generational solution. The hope is for young America First patriots to enter these institutions and acquire the power necessary to correct these bogus precedents and nationally suicidal judicial theories. Until then it will be judges and Justices selected by America Last elites, making decisions which only benefit the worst elements of American society.
