Episode Details

If you get your news from the mainstream media, you may have noticed that Democrats believe the US Supreme Court is making partisan decisions. They attribute these decisions to the political leanings of the justices and the presidents who appointed them. But the reason for their disillusionment is actually self-imposed. They have succeeded in deceiving themselves.

First, it is wise to refresh our memories on what, specifically, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is charged by the US Constitution with doing; what its duty is to the Constitution and the people of the United States.

The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights and liberties of American citizens. By interpreting the Constitution and resolving legal disputes, the Court ensures that the federal government operates within the bounds of its authority and that individual rights are not violated.

As we all know, the SCOTUS is the highest federal court in the country. It serves as the ultimate authority on matters of constitutional and federal law. Its primary duty is to interpret the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, ensuring that federal and state laws adhere to the edicts and principles set forth by each.

In interpreting the United States Constitution, SCOTUS has the exclusive purview of determining the meanings of constitutional provisions, resolving disputes over its interpretation, and striking down laws that violate constitutional principles.

The High Court is also tasked with reviewing decisions made by lower federal courts and state supreme courts, allowing it to ensure that lower courts are correctly applying federal law and consistently interpreting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain cases, meaning it is the first and only court to hear a case. This typically occurs in disputes between states or cases involving ambassadors, ministers, or consuls.

In the matter of judicial review, the SCOTUS has the authority to determine the constitutionality of federal and state laws. If a law is found to be unconstitutional, the Court can strike it down, rendering it unenforceable.

In all of this – and in recent times, believing there is fidelity to this can be challenging, Supreme Court justices are constitutionally obligated to remain impartial and unbiased in their decision-making. They must base their rulings on the facts and the law, free from personal opinions and ideological or political influence.

Further, the Justices are obligated to provide clear and well-reasoned explanations for their decisions, allowing the public to understand the Court's reasoning and ensuring that the judicial process is transparent and accountable.

Perhaps the High Court's paramount obligation is its absolute responsibility to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. This includes safeguarding freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to due process and equal protection under the law, among the other inalienable rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

The Court has a responsibility to ensure that all individuals have access to the legal system – regardless of ideology or station, including whether they are in either the public or private sphere – and that justice is administered fairly and impartially, according to US Constitution and how it applies to any matter before the Court.

Ever since the emergence of 20th-century progressivism, the idea that the US Constitution is malleable to the point of radical interpretation has become an issue. Many feel that those who favored Fabian socialism, fascism, and outright Marxism in the Wilsonian era – which wasn’t unheard of at that time –  initiated the pathway for the strict interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be cast to the wayside.

This was the era when the idea of a “living Constitution” f