Let me star by saying IANAL (I Am Not a Lawyer), although I did take a couple of business law classes in graduate school😇.

Now that we ‘ve got that out of the way, yesterday’s Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais was not just an abomination that literally turned the Constitution on its head, it was also the latest in a trend: The “conservatives” on SCOTUS make up “law” to fit its predetermined ideological viewpoints regardless of the text of the Constitution, actual originalism or lawful actions taken by its current arch nemesis - Congress.

Chief Justice Roberts asserted during his nomination hearing before the Senate - trying to ingratiate himself by using an analogy from the “National Pastime” of baseball - that “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” To continue with the baseball analogy, as the leader of the ideological reactionary majority of SCOTUS, it’s now clear that he views his and his colleagues’ job as actually changing the strike zone at their leisure to ensure that any pitch (meaning any decision) they put forth looks like a strike (look Constitutional) when, in reality, it’s a ball that is clearly outside the strike zone as defined in the rules of the game (the decision is actually just made up to fit their predetermined viewpoints).

Let’s start with a layman’s simple view of the Constitution and the Callais decision. Justice Alito wrote, “Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context”. Let’s be very, very clear here. The Constitution, via the 15th Amendment, makes it clear that consdiering race should absolutely play a part assessing voting. Not only that, but it is the sole prerogative of Congress to enforce race considerations via legislation. I fulyl agree with Senator Warnock from Georgia on this:

I wrote about Callais way back in October, 2025: SCOTUS v. Voting Rights. I wrote then:

The latest reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 passed the Senate by 98-0 and the House by 390-33. Yet, somehow, the reactionaries on SCOTUS decided that they know better than the people’s house and representatives. Per Roberts views mentioned in my previous post above, they simply decided that racism no longer exists and the 15th Amendment isn’t really a legitimate part of the Constitution.

But it’s way worse than just Callais. Many of us know about these other individual cases, but taken as a whole they highlight the complete and utter partisan hacksmanship of the current reactionary majority.

Citizens United vs. FEC. In a 5-4 decision, somehow, the ideological reactionaries on SCOTUS decided that corporations had 1st Amendment rights to speech, including political speech. Of course, you won’t find that right, or for that matter, in fact, any mention of corporations, in the Constitution. I wrote about this case in my previous post The Corporate Money Dilemma. I wrote then:

Trump vs. United States. In a 6-3 decision, somehow, the ideological reactionaries on SCOTUS decided that presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts conducted under their core constitutional authority, and presumptive immunity for all official acts, but no immunity for private acts.

Of course, immunity from criminal acts for, well, anyone, is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Roberts wrote: "The president is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the president's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution." But what if the President’s action violates existing criminal law? Extreme example: the President himself shoots a Senator form the opposite party on 5th Avenue in NYC and claims that Senator was somehow impeding the President’s ability execute a specific “official function: of the Executive branch? Sounds stupid, right? Not according to the SCOTUS majority. Of how about ordering the military to summarily blow people up in boats in the ocean who are ot an “imminent threat” and without any tangible proof of illegal activity?

No matter Roberts writings, SCOTUS did, in effect, make the resident above the law. The Framers would be rolling in their graves. In his opinion, Roberts wrote,

In the Federalist Papers #69, Alexander Hamilton wrote (bold emphasis mine):

In differentiating the President from the King of England, Hamilton also drew the key distinction between the American President and a monarch in personal accountability by writing that the President "would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace," while the person of the king "is sacred and inviolable."

Als of note, the Constitution explicitly does provide for immunity for Congress in the Speech and Debate Clause but does not do the same anywhere int he Constitution for the President.

So, to be absolutely clear, the current originalists on SCOTUS ignored the actual originalists who wrote the Constitution and decided the polar opposite from the OG intent.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case relates to the “Chevron deference” decision in 1984 in “Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.” That decision was a foundational doctrine in United States administrative law that governed how courts reviewed federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Under the Chevron test, a court first determined whether Congress had directly addressed the issue in the statutory text. If Congress’s intent was clear, both the court and the agency were bound by it. If the statute was ambiguous, the court deferred to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. This approach reflected the idea that agencies possess subject-matter expertise and political accountability that courts lack.

Makes sense, right? In the case that Congress passed a law where implementation of that law was unclear, the government would defer to the experts in the departments impacted to decided how best to implement. Of course, in the event Congress did not like a department’s interpretation or implementation of a law, they could always clarify by amending/updating the law in question.

Not to SCOTUS. Under cover of the Administrative Procedures Act passed in 1946, SCOTUS decided that (since I guess they are the experts in every possible issue/subject in any law passed by Congress that requires further interpretation - yes, sarcasm) they alone get to interpret the intent and proper implementation of a law.

District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision in 2008, somehow, the ideological reactionaries on SCOTUS decided, for the first time in the history of the United States, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms — unconnected with service in a militia — for traditionally lawful purposes.

Here is the entire text of the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. It was proposed by James Madison to ensure that citizens could maintain a well-organized militia and retain the right to own and carry arms, in response to concerns from Anti-Federalists that a strong federal standing army could threaten individual liberties.

Seems pretty clear that the right to “keep and bear arms” is, in writing, related to the necessity of having a “well regulated Militia” in the late 1700s. But that clearly does not fit the ideological viewpoint of the reactionary SCOTUS majority.

There’s more but that’s enough for now.

The current SCOTUS majority is not “rogue”. It is intentional in its disregard for the intent of the Costitution and the actual words of the Constitution where the intent/words differ from their predetermined ideology.

This is an existential threat to the 250-year old experiment in American democracy. Any future Democratic majority in Congress MUST take action to counter this threat:

For me, this is one litmus test when I look at candidates for office as well as existing incumbents: Do the recognize the need - and urgency - for SCOTUS reform?