The Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps choosing ideology over impartiality — and the rulings show it | Editorial

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded another tumultuous term in which many rulings seemed driven more by politics than by the rule of law.

While the high court rejected some of Donald Trump’s blatantly unconstitutional initiatives, the justices delivered lasting and transformative wins for the president and the Republican Party.

In doing so, the court’s conservative majority continued to mar its reputation as independent arbiters of the rule of law, charged with upholding the Constitution and protecting individual rights and liberties.

The court — which includes three Trump appointees — continued to overturn precedents, curtail voting rights, and expand presidential power.

In one major case, the justices ruled the president can fire the leaders of independent government regulators for any reason or no reason at all. The decision overturned a 91-year precedent that had long protected the agency heads from political pressure.

But then the conservative majority contradicted itself by blocking Trump’s effort to remove Fed governor Lisa D. Cook from the central bank.

The takeaway here is: Don’t look for the conservative majority to provide legal logic or follow longstanding precedents. The justices move from originalism to textualism to intentionalism and pragmatism depending on the argument.

» READ MORE: America turns 250 with its soul in the balance | Editorial

In another step backward, the conservative majority continued its more than a decade-long assault on voting rights, clearing the way for more gerrymandering and the elimination of majority-Black congressional districts.

The court also expanded gun rights and paved the way for even more money to shape elections. On both scores, the public good is further compromised.

Many of the conservative majority’s landmark rulings continue to contradict both public opinion and legal precedents, dating back to the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, ending a woman’s federal right to legal abortion.

Thankfully, the court drew some red lines on Trump’s abuse of power.

The court rejected his illegal effort to impose tariffs, which was causing economic chaos around the globe.

The court also rejected Trump’s effort to toss out mail-in ballots that arrive late. The court said the votes should be counted if the ballots were postmarked by Election Day.

As expected, the court rejected Trump’s illegal effort to end birthright citizenship. But legal experts were surprised that the vote was not 9-0.

Three of the more extreme justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — argued that citizenship is not constitutionally guaranteed, even though the 14th Amendment clearly states that “all persons born in the United States … are citizens.” Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh offered an even more convoluted opinion that agreed with the majority, but not its reasoning.

The closeness of the vote is sure to set the stage for future political battles, as the GOP will use the issue to animate its base by using anecdotal stories to argue that birth tourism is a national security threat when children born to tourists account for less than 1% of all U.S. births annually.

» READ MORE: Krasner isn’t perfect. The Pa. Supreme Court’s ruling on his exoneration push is worse. | Editorial

The slapdash legal gymnastics by dissenting justices underscore how personal politics — and not impartiality — drives the decision-making by the conservatives on the court.

The number of cases involving Trump highlighted just how much time the court has to spend on his attacks on long-standing norms, policies, and procedures that have guided the country.

While the conservative majority on the court sometimes rules against Trump, they have largely cleared the way for him to do what he wants and placed him above the law.

The greater danger of the misguided rulings, of course, is that they will live long after Trump. He will eventually be gone, and the next president will be free to abuse the power of the office as well.

How will the conservative majority respond then?

Playing politics at the Supreme Court is a losing proposition for the entire country.

Supreme Court justices swear two oaths.

One requires the justices to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The other stipulates they “administer justice impartially, without respect to persons, and to do equal right to the poor and the rich.”

On both scores, the conservative majority remains blinded by its ideology.