Is the Supreme Court Undermining Its Own Constitutional Integrity?
When selective originalism serves wealth and power, democracy pays the price
America’s founding fathers envisioned a government where power was delicately balanced among three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The Supreme Court, uniquely insulated from politics by lifetime appointments, was intended to uphold constitutional principles free from partisan bias.
Yet today, a pronounced contradiction emerges: a Supreme Court majority, predominantly appointed by Republican presidents, professes adherence to constitutional originalism but consistently refrains from limiting the presidential powers currently exercised by Donald Trump.
This stark contradiction highlights the troubling influence of political partisanship and, critically, the Federalist Society’s ideological dominance on the nation’s highest court — an influence fundamentally at odds with the republic’s foundational principles.
Originalism vs. political reality
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, anchored by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, publicly commits itself to “originalism.” This judicial philosophy asserts the Constitution should be interpreted strictly as intended by its original drafters, accounting for subsequent amendments. Originalists argue this method prevents the judiciary from imposing contemporary values onto historic texts.
Yet, paradoxically, this Court’s originalism translates less into a neutral, historicist interpretation and more into selectively applied principles that uphold partisan interests. In cases involving presidential authority, particularly during Trump’s current second term, this supposed originalism frequently bends or fades, highlighting a troubling gap between theory and judicial practice that imperils the constitutional framework itself.
The Federalist Society’s long shadow
The conservative majority is deeply intertwined with the Federalist Society, a powerful legal network committed to reshaping the judiciary according to conservative ideological principles. The Society emphasizes expansive presidential authority, limited federal regulatory power, and conservative cultural values. Significantly, every Trump-appointed justice — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — was vetted and endorsed by this organization.
The Federalist Society’s influence thus casts a long shadow, raising serious questions about judicial impartiality. The organization’s philosophy aligns closely with conservative Republican principles, including expansive views on executive power — especially when exercised by a Republican president. This ideological alignment fundamentally undermines original constitutional intent, posing a direct threat to the republic envisioned by the founders by facilitating unchecked executive authority.
Unchecked executive power
Donald Trump’s presidency continues to test constitutional boundaries: issuing controversial executive orders, defying congressional subpoenas, and exerting pressure on federal agencies for partisan gain. Historically, the Supreme Court acted decisively to curtail such presidential overreach — during Watergate, Nixon’s refusal to release tapes was rebuffed unanimously; similarly, Clinton’s expansive claims of executive privilege were decisively limited.
Yet, under Trump, the Supreme Court frequently hesitates, equivocates, or outright refuses to intervene decisively. Despite clear challenges to constitutional norms — such as redirecting congressionally appropriated military funds to build the border wall or refusing to cooperate with congressional investigations — this Court’s responses remain cautious and ambiguous, often sidestepping rather than confronting fundamental constitutional issues, thus endangering the integrity of constitutional governance.
Ignoring founders’ intent
The framers designed a system explicitly meant to prevent monarchical tendencies, ensuring the president could not become an unchecked authority. James Madison, in Federalist №47, emphasized that accumulating legislative, executive, and judiciary powers in one branch represents “the very definition of tyranny.”
However, when Trump openly flouts legislative oversight or circumvents congressional budgetary authority, originalist justices remain curiously reluctant to enforce Madison’s foundational warnings.
Compounding this issue is the disturbing reality that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have accepted significant financial gifts from ultra-wealthy benefactors. These ethically dubious relationships inherently bias judicial perspectives, encouraging rulings favorable to the economic elite and further undermining the impartiality essential to constitutional governance.
This selective originalism — strict in cultural or regulatory contexts yet lenient toward executive excess and economic privilege — illustrates how the Court’s conservative majority struggles to reconcile professed constitutional principles with partisan loyalty and personal gain, threatening the very survival of the republic as envisioned by the founders.
The consequences of partisan judicial decisions
This selective application of constitutional interpretation erodes institutional credibility and weakens democratic accountability. When the highest court refrains from checking executive excess, the presidency accumulates unchecked power, undermining the system of checks and balances foundational to American democracy.
Moreover, public trust in judicial impartiality erodes significantly when citizens perceive that the Supreme Court prioritizes partisan affiliation and personal enrichment over constitutional fidelity. A judiciary that appears politically motivated rather than constitutionally driven destabilizes the democratic process, reducing the Court’s rulings to mere extensions of partisan politics and economic interests rather than independent assessments grounded in the law, jeopardizing democratic stability.
Restoring judicial impartiality
Addressing this contradiction requires substantial reform. The Supreme Court must recommit genuinely to originalist principles — not selectively, but consistently. This means rigorously upholding constitutional constraints on all branches, particularly the presidency, regardless of political affiliation.
Additionally, reducing the outsized influence of ideologically driven organizations like the Federalist Society is essential. Ensuring judicial appointments prioritize demonstrable impartiality and constitutional integrity over ideological alignment and economic interests can help restore public trust in judicial independence and safeguard the founders’ vision for the republic.
America’s urgent need for true originalism
The current Supreme Court majority’s partisan-influenced reluctance to constrain presidential power under Donald Trump starkly contrasts with their professed adherence to originalism. This contradiction, deeply influenced by Federalist Society ideology and personal financial entanglements, threatens democratic governance by enabling unchecked executive actions that flout constitutional constraints.
If the Supreme Court is to uphold its critical role as the impartial guardian of constitutional democracy, it must transcend partisanship, rigorously enforce constitutional boundaries, and reassert genuine commitment to the founders’ original intent.
Only through a genuinely impartial judiciary, faithful to the Constitution rather than partisan or economic interests, can America ensure the presidency remains balanced within the republic’s intended framework, preserving the republic as envisioned by the founders.
