The article is right to note that an independent judiciary is an essential safeguard against authoritarianism, but it overlooks a second structural necessity: a Senate that represents the States. For more than a century, both of these constitutional guardrails have been eroding, and with them the public’s respect for Washington. When neither the Senate nor the courts function as intended, the federal government inevitably panders to the passions of the people — a drift toward mobocracy that the Framers feared above all.
As Congress abandoned its responsibility to confront the country’s core problems, the Judiciary was pulled into the political vacuum. The process reached its tawdriest moment in the Bork hearings, when Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden made judicial politics explicit and theatrical. Once the courts were openly politicized, the consequences were inevitable: every major question became a partisan struggle over who would control the bench.
Fortunately, the current Court has begun restoring constitutional balance by returning certain issues to the states. It has narrowed the Commerce Clause, limited deference to federal agencies, expanded state autonomy in litigation, and reduced the reach of federal regulation. Dobbs (2022) and Loper Bright (2024) stand out as the clearest examples of this effort to reestablish federalism. Even some of President Trump’s executive orders have exposed how urgently the courts must continue to rein in federal power, particularly in the executive branch.
Our democracy will be healthier — and more stable — if an independent judiciary accelerates this work of restoring the constitutional architecture the country was meant to rely on.
Strongmen almost never abolish the courts, because they need to keep up the illusion that this is all normal, all legal, nothing to see here. And it works for the low-information (ahem, MAGA, Fox-News-viewing) voter. But of course six of the nine justices are pawns for either the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society - either flat out endorsed, bribed, obviously devoted to the cause, or all three.
So claiming impartiality (by the right) is just another shiny object that obscures the obvious ideological fealty of their SCOTUS henchmen. The right hasn't played by the rules for years, and it's up to the Dems to stack the absolute shit out of the courts. It sucks to need to stoop this low, but there's no time squabble when faced with authoritarianism / fascism.
Of course Trump doesn't even understand the more academic version of the grift, as he's just a schoolyard dunce. For him it's just "disloyalty to me means they're stupid losers." So, dear Dems, it's no time for politesse: stack the courts, let the fascists and deplorables whine, and get down to the adult business of cleaning up the goddamn mess they've made. If an academic occasionally gets your back, great. That's nice. We don't care, we're sick of your bullshit, and your day has passed. Good riddance.
I read the article closely and I completely understand the argument.
It's not a great idea to make your bed when your house is on fire. Hate to tell you, but the house is on fire.
The "what-happens-when-the-tables-turn???!!!" logic has led to Dem complacency and limp pushback while the right is laughing their asses off as they violate rule after rule after rule, and we let it happen. You think Trump was worried about tables turning when he pardoned the J6ers? You think McConnell was worried when he blocked Merick Garland's appointment? You think Trump thought "Gee willickers, wonder what happens when the tables turn?" when he was bulldozing the east wing??? I'm sorry, but the logic you offer is absolutely terrible, and it's your presumption of civility on the other side that has steamrolled decency. So, yes, I read the article. Twice. And I don't buy it.
Courts have no authority over presidential pardons or senate confirmation votes. Where they do exercise authority, Trump has frequently either lost (birthright citizenship, tariffs) or is in the process of losing (slush fund already dropped).
Consider this: Republicans control the presidency and both chambers. They are in exactly they position you expect Democrats to soon be in. They could pack the courts to push through every fantasy MAGA and Trump could ever want. Why do you think they hesitate? And do you really think they will hold that line if Democrats shoot fist?
I hear your argument and I understand it fully. I just think you're wrong.
Did you see my McConnell comment? It's this naiveté that has led to our current dumpster fire. It's like Charlie Brown advising someone to hold the football very, very still, when someone's lining up to kick it, lest we try to kick the ball while Lucy holds it one day!
They HAVE packed the non-SC courts, and the reason they haven't increased the count in the SC is because they already have a 6-3 supermajority!! They have no incentive to do so. You think they're exercising restraint??? The same guy that just appointed his personal attorney as AG? The same guy that started a war with Iran without congressional approval. The same guy that wrote himself a lifetime immunity certificate from IRS for cheating on his taxes, forever? The same dude that asked Georgia authorities to "find" thousands of votes? Jesus. Stop reading the Free Press or whatever publication you inform yourself with, because you're not making a respectable amount of sense.
I did see your McConnell comment, and turnabout is fair play: Democrats can refuse to vote on Trump nominees, and have, and will continue to.
But changing the court composition to serve politics is another level. And whether prudent or not (I think not), it indisputably violates this article's whole thesis.
You're right. I absolutely disagree with this article's thesis. It's not the first time I've disagreed with Francis Fukuyama. Last question and I'm retiring this thread... are you seriously suggesting that Trump's 3 SC picks were not politicizing the content of the court?
Maybe the bigger problem is the Electoral College. A majority of the justices, five-sixths of the conservative majority, were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote.
It's impressive that something so fundamental to Western Civilization and American greatness as "rule of law" can be deliberately ignored and derided and disrespected by a twice-elected American president. It would appear the man understands none of it, or if he does, that he doesn't care a whit about it. "It" in this case meaning both Western Civilization and American greatness, the empty and theatrical political rhetoric of the MAGA movement notwithstanding.
The title's subhead screams "dictatorship". But the article ends saying that Trump didn't get his way. U.S. judicial and legislative system still intact. Not a king after all.
I am late to this conversation but wish to point out one current, high-stakes test of the value of an independent judiciary. The test will be whether district courts in DC and Maryland prevent the Trump Administration from stripping job protections from high-ranking federal workers doing policy-related work. Last week the White House moved forward to strip such protections from 8,000 civil servants - meaning that they will not be able to speak truth to power without weighing whether or not they will have to look for a new job. For those interested, I wrote about this last week in the online edition of the Federal News Network https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2026/06/the-campaign-against-federal-workers-turns-ominous/.
Everyone has a responsibility to do something to better our future. May I guide you to “a third way” path? I am fighting for America in a new and different way, via an online “third path” to a better societal problem-solving future at EthicalGovtNow.org. I urge all liberal thinkers to visit today, evaluate our path and join our patriotic movement.
The article is right to note that an independent judiciary is an essential safeguard against authoritarianism, but it overlooks a second structural necessity: a Senate that represents the States. For more than a century, both of these constitutional guardrails have been eroding, and with them the public’s respect for Washington. When neither the Senate nor the courts function as intended, the federal government inevitably panders to the passions of the people — a drift toward mobocracy that the Framers feared above all.
As Congress abandoned its responsibility to confront the country’s core problems, the Judiciary was pulled into the political vacuum. The process reached its tawdriest moment in the Bork hearings, when Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden made judicial politics explicit and theatrical. Once the courts were openly politicized, the consequences were inevitable: every major question became a partisan struggle over who would control the bench.
Fortunately, the current Court has begun restoring constitutional balance by returning certain issues to the states. It has narrowed the Commerce Clause, limited deference to federal agencies, expanded state autonomy in litigation, and reduced the reach of federal regulation. Dobbs (2022) and Loper Bright (2024) stand out as the clearest examples of this effort to reestablish federalism. Even some of President Trump’s executive orders have exposed how urgently the courts must continue to rein in federal power, particularly in the executive branch.
Our democracy will be healthier — and more stable — if an independent judiciary accelerates this work of restoring the constitutional architecture the country was meant to rely on.
Strongmen almost never abolish the courts, because they need to keep up the illusion that this is all normal, all legal, nothing to see here. And it works for the low-information (ahem, MAGA, Fox-News-viewing) voter. But of course six of the nine justices are pawns for either the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society - either flat out endorsed, bribed, obviously devoted to the cause, or all three.
So claiming impartiality (by the right) is just another shiny object that obscures the obvious ideological fealty of their SCOTUS henchmen. The right hasn't played by the rules for years, and it's up to the Dems to stack the absolute shit out of the courts. It sucks to need to stoop this low, but there's no time squabble when faced with authoritarianism / fascism.
Of course Trump doesn't even understand the more academic version of the grift, as he's just a schoolyard dunce. For him it's just "disloyalty to me means they're stupid losers." So, dear Dems, it's no time for politesse: stack the courts, let the fascists and deplorables whine, and get down to the adult business of cleaning up the goddamn mess they've made. If an academic occasionally gets your back, great. That's nice. We don't care, we're sick of your bullshit, and your day has passed. Good riddance.
And when they win a majority again, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide?
If you think Democrats stacking the courts is the answer, I don't think you read this article very closely.
I read the article closely and I completely understand the argument.
It's not a great idea to make your bed when your house is on fire. Hate to tell you, but the house is on fire.
The "what-happens-when-the-tables-turn???!!!" logic has led to Dem complacency and limp pushback while the right is laughing their asses off as they violate rule after rule after rule, and we let it happen. You think Trump was worried about tables turning when he pardoned the J6ers? You think McConnell was worried when he blocked Merick Garland's appointment? You think Trump thought "Gee willickers, wonder what happens when the tables turn?" when he was bulldozing the east wing??? I'm sorry, but the logic you offer is absolutely terrible, and it's your presumption of civility on the other side that has steamrolled decency. So, yes, I read the article. Twice. And I don't buy it.
Courts have no authority over presidential pardons or senate confirmation votes. Where they do exercise authority, Trump has frequently either lost (birthright citizenship, tariffs) or is in the process of losing (slush fund already dropped).
Consider this: Republicans control the presidency and both chambers. They are in exactly they position you expect Democrats to soon be in. They could pack the courts to push through every fantasy MAGA and Trump could ever want. Why do you think they hesitate? And do you really think they will hold that line if Democrats shoot fist?
I hear your argument and I understand it fully. I just think you're wrong.
Did you see my McConnell comment? It's this naiveté that has led to our current dumpster fire. It's like Charlie Brown advising someone to hold the football very, very still, when someone's lining up to kick it, lest we try to kick the ball while Lucy holds it one day!
They HAVE packed the non-SC courts, and the reason they haven't increased the count in the SC is because they already have a 6-3 supermajority!! They have no incentive to do so. You think they're exercising restraint??? The same guy that just appointed his personal attorney as AG? The same guy that started a war with Iran without congressional approval. The same guy that wrote himself a lifetime immunity certificate from IRS for cheating on his taxes, forever? The same dude that asked Georgia authorities to "find" thousands of votes? Jesus. Stop reading the Free Press or whatever publication you inform yourself with, because you're not making a respectable amount of sense.
I did see your McConnell comment, and turnabout is fair play: Democrats can refuse to vote on Trump nominees, and have, and will continue to.
But changing the court composition to serve politics is another level. And whether prudent or not (I think not), it indisputably violates this article's whole thesis.
You're right. I absolutely disagree with this article's thesis. It's not the first time I've disagreed with Francis Fukuyama. Last question and I'm retiring this thread... are you seriously suggesting that Trump's 3 SC picks were not politicizing the content of the court?
Maybe the bigger problem is the Electoral College. A majority of the justices, five-sixths of the conservative majority, were appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote.
It's not just that Trump violated the rules of liberal democracy. It's that he doesn't understand why they're there, that they make no sense to him.
It's impressive that something so fundamental to Western Civilization and American greatness as "rule of law" can be deliberately ignored and derided and disrespected by a twice-elected American president. It would appear the man understands none of it, or if he does, that he doesn't care a whit about it. "It" in this case meaning both Western Civilization and American greatness, the empty and theatrical political rhetoric of the MAGA movement notwithstanding.
The title's subhead screams "dictatorship". But the article ends saying that Trump didn't get his way. U.S. judicial and legislative system still intact. Not a king after all.
All true. And the Trump devotees say "so what". Then what?
I am late to this conversation but wish to point out one current, high-stakes test of the value of an independent judiciary. The test will be whether district courts in DC and Maryland prevent the Trump Administration from stripping job protections from high-ranking federal workers doing policy-related work. Last week the White House moved forward to strip such protections from 8,000 civil servants - meaning that they will not be able to speak truth to power without weighing whether or not they will have to look for a new job. For those interested, I wrote about this last week in the online edition of the Federal News Network https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2026/06/the-campaign-against-federal-workers-turns-ominous/.
Everyone has a responsibility to do something to better our future. May I guide you to “a third way” path? I am fighting for America in a new and different way, via an online “third path” to a better societal problem-solving future at EthicalGovtNow.org. I urge all liberal thinkers to visit today, evaluate our path and join our patriotic movement.