SCOTUS: A Spine, Or Just Jell-O?

Published on: Fri, 03 Jul 2026 22:30:09 GMT
Original Story: Brooks and Capehart on whether the Supreme Court has stood up to Trump – PBS

Alright, settle in, folks. Grab your lukewarm coffee and prepare for another riveting discussion about whether the highest court in the land, the venerable Supreme Court of the United States, actually, you know, *functions* as intended. Specifically, we’re diving into the ongoing existential crisis of whether it’s ever truly managed to stand up to a certain former president whose relationship with checks and balances has always been less “loving embrace” and more “forceful shove into a locker.”

PBS recently trotted out David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart to chew on this very question. And honestly, bless their hearts for trying to find a definitive answer in a political climate that’s about as clear as a mud puddle after a monsoon. The core of their discussion, and indeed, the endless dinner-table debates across America, boils down to this: Is the Supreme Court an impartial arbiter of the law, a steadfast bulwark against executive overreach, or merely a highly polished, very expensive weather vane, constantly spinning with the prevailing political winds? Spoiler alert: the answer is probably “all of the above, depending on the day, the case, and which way the wind blows from Mar-a-Lago.”

The Grand Illusion of Impartiality, Redux

Let’s be real. The idea of the Supreme Court being entirely apolitical is a quaint notion, like believing you’ll get through a work week without at least three “urgent” meetings that could’ve been emails. The justices are appointed by presidents, confirmed by senators, and often come from backgrounds steeped in partisan legal battles. To expect them to shed all ideological leanings upon donning their robes is to ask them to shed their very human nature. What we *do* expect, however, is a commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law that transcends personal fealty. A tall order, apparently, when one of the executive branch’s previous occupants seemingly views the judiciary as an extension of his personal legal team, or at the very least, a collection of individuals who *owe* him.

When the Robes Rustle: Moments of Apparent Independence

There have been instances, sure, where the Court has appeared to flex its institutional muscles. Remember the early days of the Trump administration? The travel ban, for instance, which was initially met with a series of lower court injunctions that eventually led to a revised, more legally sound version (though still deeply contentious). The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the *revised* ban in Trump v. Hawaii, but the judicial process itself forced the administration to refine its approach, demonstrating a theoretical check. Then there was the highly anticipated showdown over Trump’s financial records and tax returns. In cases like Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Vance (both 2020), the Court, including his own appointees, largely rejected the president’s sweeping claims of absolute immunity from subpoenas, affirming that no one, not even the President, is above the law when it comes to legitimate investigations. These were moments where the Court, however incrementally, seemed to remind everyone that there are, in fact, limits.

And let’s not forget the post-2020 election challenges. A flurry of lawsuits, some bordering on the fantastical, were brought before various courts, culminating in requests for the Supreme Court to intervene and effectively overturn election results. The Court, repeatedly, and without much fanfare, refused to hear these cases. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, all Trump appointees, joined their colleagues in declining to take up these challenges, effectively slamming the door on efforts to subvert the democratic process through the judiciary. This was, arguably, one of the most critical moments where the Court chose institutional integrity over partisan loyalty.

When the Robes Wilt: Moments of Apparent Deference

But for every show of spine, there seems to be a corresponding moment of institutional pliability. Consider the slow-walking of cases, the strategic avoidance of direct confrontation on particularly thorny issues, or the consistent expansion of executive power precedents. The Court often treads carefully, preferring narrow rulings or sidestepping opportunities to directly curb a president’s power. The “shadow docket,” for instance, has become a growing concern, where the Court issues significant orders and injunctions without full briefing or oral argument, often granting emergency requests from the executive branch. This less transparent process has been heavily criticized for allowing major policy shifts to occur with minimal scrutiny, effectively making the Court’s oversight less robust and more opaque.

Furthermore, the Court’s perceived reluctance to dive into cases that directly challenged certain executive orders, even when they seemed to push constitutional boundaries, left many observers feeling that the judiciary was, at times, more concerned with avoiding political hot potatoes than with rigorously upholding the Constitution. It’s a delicate dance, balancing institutional legitimacy with the imperative to apply the law, but sometimes it felt less like a dance and more like a retreat.

The “Loyalty” Clause That Isn’t: Trump’s Constitutional Contradiction

Now, let’s get to the crux of the matter and explicitly address that specific prior time our former president conveniently contradicted his own stance on judicial independence. Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump consistently praised the justices he appointed – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – often highlighting their “brilliance,” their “conservative” bona fides, and the “tremendous job” they would do. He publicly crowed about reshaping the Court for “generations,” implying a certain ideological alignment that would naturally favor his political agenda. The implication was clear: *my* picks would rule *my* way.

Fast forward to late 2020 and early 2021. After the presidential election, when Trump’s legal team launched a barrage of lawsuits alleging widespread voter fraud, he fully expected the Supreme Court, particularly his three appointees, to ride to his rescue. When the Court, including Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, repeatedly declined to hear these challenges – signaling a firm refusal to overturn the election results – Trump’s tune changed dramatically. He publicly expressed his “disappointment” in his appointees, suggesting they lacked “courage” and implicitly accusing them of failing to support him. In December 2020, for example, after the Court rejected a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate votes in four battleground states, Trump reportedly lamented that his own appointees had “let him down.” This sentiment was echoed in subsequent statements and interviews, where he criticized the Court for not having the “guts” to intervene. This wasn’t just a critique of a ruling; it was a profound contradiction. He had previously lauded their independence when it meant they were confirmed, but then demanded their loyalty when it came to his political aims. The expectation that his handpicked justices would act as personal political saviors, rather than impartial arbiters of the law, exposed a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a deliberate rejection, of the very concept of an independent judiciary. It’s almost as if he believed their appointments came with a loyalty oath, not to the Constitution, but to him personally.

The Founders’ Mild Disappointment

One can only imagine the founders, perhaps James Madison sipping some ethereal, sugar-free LaCroix in the great beyond, observing this spectacle with a mixture of exasperation and profound disappointment. The whole point of establishing three distinct branches was to create a system of checks and balances, ensuring no single entity could become too powerful. The judiciary was designed to be the ultimate arbiter, safeguarding the Constitution from legislative overreach and executive tyranny. It wasn’t meant to be a political football, nor a rubber stamp for whoever happened to be occupying the Oval Office.

Yet, here we are, constantly dissecting whether the Court has “stood up” to a president, as if its primary function is to engage in a gladiatorial contest rather than a dispassionate application of legal principles. The very question implies a systemic erosion of the ideal. When a president views his appointees as loyal foot soldiers rather than independent legal minds, and when the public is left to wonder if the Court is truly impartial or merely playing political chess, the foundations of constitutional governance begin to look a bit shaky. It’s a slow, insidious process, like rust on an old swing set – eventually, something’s going to break.

Snarky Takeaway

So, did the Supreme Court stand up to Trump? Sometimes, yes, like a teenager reluctantly cleaning their room. Other times, not so much, like that same teenager expertly avoiding eye contact when asked to do the dishes. The ongoing debate isn’t just about specific rulings; it’s about the ever-eroding public trust in institutions that are supposed to be above the political fray. And if the highest court in the land can be openly questioned about its “spine” when faced with a powerful executive, well, maybe it’s time we all started investing in extra-strength institutional scaffolding. Because clearly, the old framework is looking a bit wobbly.