Supreme Court's Institutional Integrity at Risk
Dr. David Adler · December 17, 2021
Chief Justice John Roberts, an ardent believer in the premise that the Supreme Court has a solemn responsibility to defend its institutional integrity, lamented the Court's decision to let stand a Texas statute, S.B. 8, which prohibits abortion after six weeks. As the world knows, this law eviscerates the fundamental right of women to obtain an abortion, first declared by the Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and reiterated numerous times over the past half century. Chief Justice Roberts quoted an 1809 opinion: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution becomes a solemn mockery." Roberts added: "The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake." The Court,…
Members only. Join for $19.99/month
More on Constitution & the Courts
James Madison: The President May Pervert His Administration into a Scheme of Peculation and Oppression
James Madison's prescient warning about a president who might engineer a scheme of deep-seated and pervasive corruption, grounded in self-dealing to enrich himself and strengthen his ties to law-breaking loyalists through arbitrary acts that violate the Constitution and republican principles, reverberates across the nation at this juncture in our history as Americans learn more details about President Donald Trump's underhanded operations.
Trump's Slush Fund Reflects Concentration of Power in the Executive, Collapse of Constitutional Guardrails
One of the grave consequences for American Constitutionalism of the untrammeled concentration of power in the hands of President Donald Trump--the putative goal of Project 2025--is his total control over the Department of Justice.
Readers Ask About Restraining Presidential Warmaking: Replying to Thoughtful Questions
Few exercises of governmental power trigger more questions about constitutionality and legality, not to mention considerations of wisdom and judgment, than warmaking, particularly unilateral presidential warmaking.
