Supreme Court Assaults Are a Losing Strategy for the GOP—Even When Decisions Favor Trump

The Supreme Court occasionally rules against President Donald Trump, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

However, some Republicans who fought for years to restore the court’s alignment with constitutional principles seem to have lost sight of that longstanding struggle.

In recent times, the Court has faced a barrage of attacks and intimidation from those on the left who are outraged at the thought that the judiciary might not bow entirely to their demands.

We should remember the disastrous threats from Democrats to pack the court, which would have irreparably harmed the country’s political foundation.

Ironically, that was the least egregious of the progressives’ misdeeds.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer warned Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that they would “reap the whirlwind” if they did not substitute his political demands for their legal verdicts.

“Mostly peaceful” demonstrators gathered outside justices’ residences to intimidate them and their families.

A would-be assassin appeared at Kavanaugh’s home and later admitted he had plotted additional attacks on conservative justices to facilitate President Biden’s replacement of them with liberal nominees.

This was a predictable outcome of Schumer’s call for vengeance and the left’s pledge to forcibly reshape the court.

The Democrats’ long-standing efforts to undermine a vital American institution contradict their proclaimed commitment to decency and democracy.

Yet, some on the right have begun to echo these same sentiments.

Take note of the widespread outrage last week after a 7-2 majority halted the immediate deportation of individuals targeted by Trump under the Alien Enemies Act due to allegations of gang activity.

Stephen Miller, a prominent former deputy White House chief of staff, let loose on social media, accusing the court of “sabotaging democracy” and coddling “foreign terrorists.”

Mike Davis of the influential Article III Project provocatively suggested that Trump should suspend habeas corpus and “house the terrorists near the Chevy Chase Country Club, with daytime release”— a veiled threat that the president shared.

Radio host Jesse Kelly urged Trump to “disregard the Supreme Court. Arrest anyone attempting to enforce this,” and even invoked the idea of “dissolving the Supreme Court entirely if they push.”

The president himself voiced anger towards the court — one-third of which consists of his own appointees, all of whom ruled against him in this particular instance.

“The worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally unstable, who entered our country illegally, cannot be expelled without undergoing a lengthy, complicated, and costly legal process,” he expressed his frustration.

This tirade was fueled by an online smear campaign against Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed, targeting her swing votes in some unfavorable rulings earlier this year.

Some so-called Trump supporters even criticized him for hiring the “evil” Barrett as a “DEI” hire.

None of this backlash is justified.

The court, like every other federal institution, isn’t beyond critique — but in its current form, most members are striving to do their jobs by accurately interpreting the law and applying it to specific cases.

It’s highly misleading to adopt the framing of partisan actors and the media, who often insist that it’s the court’s duty to make policy choices.

In reality, its rulings should be based on important procedural matters, not the personal preferences of its members.

In the Alien Enemies Act case, the court determined that the Trump administration had failed to provide essential due process to some of those detained and facing deportation.

According to the law, as noted by legal scholars like Ed Whelan and John Yoo, those targeted under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to contest their designation as enemy aliens — affording them greater due process rights than other undocumented immigrants.

Thus, this court isn’t implementing measures to keep undocumented individuals in the country — evidenced by its recent ruling lifting a stay on the deportation of 350,000 Venezuelans temporarily allowed entry.

It is simply interpreting legal statutes and applying them to the case at hand, without bias.

Just as it did when it drew the ire of Democrats by overturning Roe v. Wade, safeguarding Second Amendment rights, nullifying Biden’s illegal student-loan debt transfer, and dismantling elements of the excessive federal bureaucracy.

Over the last three decades, the GOP has played a crucial role in molding the court to serve as a bulwark against unconstitutional actions from power-hungry progressives.

Aligning with Democrats to undermine public trust in the judiciary at this moment would be a colossal mistake — especially based on short-sighted misinterpretations that parallel the left’s stale and disgraceful efforts to dismantle it.

Isaac Schorr is a staff writer at Mediaite.