The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on a Louisiana voting rights case, a decision painstakingly detailed over thirty-six pages, was dismissed with a single, stinging word by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries: “illegitimate.” This wasn’t a critique of the ruling itself, but a direct assault on the Court’s very foundation.
The Court hadn’t dismantled the Voting Rights Act, as many claimed. Instead, it clarified that the law prohibits intentional discrimination *against* voters based on race, not the manipulation of district lines to *guarantee* representation for a specific racial group. The core principle, repeatedly affirmed, is equal opportunity, not engineered outcomes.
Chief Justice Roberts, years prior, described the practice of dividing citizens by race as “a sordid business.” He, and others, believe the path to equality lies in ceasing to consider race at all – a sentiment lost in the ensuing uproar. The ruling aimed to prevent disadvantage, not to create advantage.
The reaction, however, was swift and severe. Expert analysis often lacked nuance, devolving into accusations of a “slaying” of the Voting Rights Act. Accusations flew, fueled by years of simmering discontent with the Court’s conservative majority.
What began as academic criticism – labeling justices “partisan hacks” – has escalated into a full-blown movement to dismantle the Court itself, or even the Constitution upon which it stands. One legal scholar recently published a book warning that no democracy lasts forever, suggesting the Constitution now *threatens* the United States.
Calls for “transforming” the Court, for “packing” it with new justices, echoed through the halls of Congress. This wasn’t a new concern, but the intensity surged only after a consistent conservative majority took hold, overturning decades of precedent.
Some observers draw parallels to the radical factions of pre-revolutionary France, figures willing to tear down established institutions in pursuit of a new order. A growing chorus now advocates for abandoning “constitutionalism” altogether, seeking to replace the Court with a body more amenable to their vision.
The public, however, remains deeply attached to the Constitution and its institutions. This realization has led to a more pragmatic, though equally unsettling, strategy: quietly pledge to pack the Court once power is regained, ensuring a compliant judiciary.
Democratic strategist James Carville bluntly stated that expanding the Court to thirteen justices is inevitable, advising his party to simply “do it” without debate. He emphasized the need to attack both the justices *and* the institution itself, recognizing that dismantling a 250-year-old republic requires a potent force – rage.
Ironically, the Supreme Court achieves near-unanimity in the vast majority of its decisions. The highly publicized 6-3 splits are the exception, not the rule. Even former President Trump recently denounced conservative justices for ruling against his administration, highlighting the unpredictable nature of judicial decisions.
This campaign of delegitimization isn’t about legal interpretation or voting records; it’s about power. As former Attorney General Eric Holder admitted, it’s about “the acquisition and the use of power” should Democrats achieve a governing trifecta. The law, in this context, is merely a tool.
