It might seem strange to read that Democrats are preparing to investigate a Supreme Court justice. The legislature’s authority over the top court, after all, is seriously limited. Justices’ lifetime appointments are designed precisely to shield them from the kinds of political pressures Congress or the president might bring to bear post-confirmation.
It might seem even stranger to see Justice Samuel Alito splashed across the top of Politico’s Playbook and the New York Times morning newsletters for the high crime and misdemeanor of flying a nerdy Revolutionary War flag.
But it is part of a deliberate strategy to try to try to combat virtually the only check remaining on the Democrat Party’s political power. While Congress and the White House cannot outright remove judges, they can bring real pressure to bear, cast national doubt on rulings, and reform the court even to the point of expanding it.
The reason for all this is the Supreme Court sometimes says no to things Democrats want. Already this year, the court has batted down Trump v. Anderson, in which a state official tried to block Republican candidate Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot for treason. They are currently considering two other cases that could decide what immunities a president has from prosecution for official duties and whether a law designed to prosecute Enron executives can be used to put Jan. 6 rioters and trespassers in prison for years.
Far beyond Trump, the 2024 opinion season could prove a very hot summer for the administrative state. Decisions on the calendar look set to potentially overturn precedents and practices that have insulated and empowered the federal bureaucracy for decades.
First, the infamous “Chevron doctrine,” which for nearly 40 years has given broad deference to agencies to interpret statutes themselves and enforce them accordingly. Second, for nearly 50 years, government agencies like the IRS, EPA, and National Labor Relations Board have been able to keep disputes out of court, confining them instead to administrative tribunals. The court is poised to strike down the precedent that sanctioned these internal courts.
When you stack these upcoming rulings on the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, you’ve got a court that liberals hate as much as conservatives hated the Warren court 50 years ago. But while conservative thinkers like L. Brent Bozell and Judge Robert Bork took issue with that court’s legal thought and worked to reshape it, today’s American left is simply trying to intimidate and delegitimize targeted justices.
“Democrats’ Supreme Court Strategy is fourfold,” a senior Republican Senate aide told Blaze News: “First, incentivize justices to defect and change their rulings. Second, delegitimize the Court’s outputs. Third, provide political cover for aggressive ethics reforms that are stalking horses for bureaucratic controls to kneecap the Republican majority, such as mandatory recusals on the basis of unevenly applied ethical standards. And fourth, create the political conditions necessary for court-packing.”
We’ve watched modern Supreme Court intimidation for years now. President Barack Obama famously broke decorum at the State of the Union, scolding justices to their faces during his 2010 State of the Union. But now it’s different.
For three springs, the court has endured an annual attack, coordinated between opposition researchers, their friends in the press, congressional allies, and sometimes even internal abettors. The timing matters because spring is around the time the court starts releasing its decisions.
On May 5, 2022, Politico published a leaked decision from Justice Alito striking down Roe v. Wade. Over the following months, Democrats and their media allies launched a concerted and vitriolic pressure campaign hoping (in vain) to shift the decision before its eventual release.
On April 6, 2023, the left-wing-funded ProPublica launched a polished series of pieces attacking Justice Clarence Thomas over his wealthy friends and supporters and the trips he and his wife took with them.
On May 16, 2024, the New York Times sent out a “breaking news” alert that an upside-down American flag had flown at the Justice Samuel Alito’s New Jersey beach house on Jan. 17, 2020. The Times reported that the upside-down flag — traditionally a symbol of distress, but in more recent decades a more left-wing, anti-American symbol — was actually a secret Jan. 6 riot symbol.
On cue, Democrats like Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) introduced a resolution to censure the judge.
On May 20, news “broke” that Alito had sold Bud Light stock after the Dylan Mulvaney fiasco and bought stock in Coors. What scandal.
On May 22, the Times followed up with another “breaking news” alert: this time, that the family had flown a Revolutionary War flag, which the Times also tried to link to the Capitol riot. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he was considering ethics reforms. Left-wing activist group and perennial gadflies Demand Justice announced a “six figure campaign that includes digital and television ad buys” targeting Alito, according to Politico.
Little is ever unprecedented, but seasonal opposition research dumps on the Supreme Court are a new ball game. The rules and patterns are just beginning to take shape. The essential thing to remember is the embarrassment campaigns are not the goal but merely the first step. The goal is a frightened and subservient court.
Wall Street Journal: Samuel Alito, his wife and the Ginsburg Standard
Blaze News: Desperate to kneecap Justice Alito, liberal media try tying him to Bud Light boycott
The Daily Caller: ProPublica’s top donors also bankroll activist groups targeting Justice Clarence Thomas
The Washington Examiner: Democratic dark money kingmaker pumps millions into ‘nonpartisan’ Supreme Court watchdogs
