~~ recommended by newestbeginning ~~
There are so many outrageous, unimaginable terrible things happening on a daily basis - here is Armitage addressing the death of legal precedent and what it means. I put up a lot of Armitage these days - his educated take on the state of the world and illumination of ways to fight back to protect ourselves - is important.
His main take, that the Roberts Court and Heritage Foundation bulldozing our rights and freedoms by overturning legal precedent, shows us that the new precedents they are setting are not worth the paper they are written on as they too can be overturned and ignored.
Welcome to the wild wild west.
They overturn the law whenever it suits them. The rules no longer protect us, they bind us to our captors.
|
 |
The Supreme Court is overturning settled law faster than any court in living memory. To understand why that should alarm you, you have to understand the thing they are overturning.
It is called precedent, and it works like this. When a court decides a case, the courts below it have to follow that decision when they handle similar cases later. Same question, same answer. It is what keeps the law steady, so that two people with the same problem get treated the same way no matter which judge they stand in front of. It is a large part of how we take the bias out and keep justice blind.
The Supreme Court sits at the top, so every court in the country has to follow what it decides. But the Supreme Court does not have to follow itself. Nobody can make it. When the justices honor their own past rulings, they do it by choice, out of respect for stability and for the people who built their lives around the law as it stood. That choice has a name, stare decisis, and for two centuries it mostly held.
Hold onto that, because the whole story turns on it. Precedent at the top was never hard law the way the Constitution is hard law. It was always a habit the justices kept on purpose, a promise the Court made to itself. A promise holds only as long as the people who made it keep it.
That promise is dead now, thanks to the John Roberts Court and the Federalist Society and the conservatives behind them, because they will destroy anything to get to their ends. No one can name the exact moment it died. We only know it is gone, killed across years, one ruling at a time.
This piece does two things. First we count the bodies, the settled rules this Court overturned one at a time because they were in the way, until nobody can call it an accident. Then we talk about what the killing means, because it should frighten us and free us at the same time. We start with the dead.
One thing before the count. Change is not the crime. The law is supposed to change, and every generation works the meaning out again. Judges have always overturned precedent, and sometimes they should. Brown v. Board overturned Plessy and ended legal segregation. Lawrence overturned Bowers and stopped states from jailing people for who they loved. Overturning a rotten precedent can be one of the best things a court ever does. So every judge already knows the truth the rest of us are only now seeing: precedent binds no one who does not want to be bound. What damns these six justices is what they changed the law for and how they did it. They tore down protections ordinary people relied on and handed the power to corporations and the rich, and more than once they did it without admitting that is what they were doing.
Take the rule almost nobody outside a courtroom has heard of, the one lawyers call Chevron deference. Congress passes a law, and an agency in the executive branch, staffed by experts who know the field, writes the rules that make it work. No statute can spell out ten thousand rules, so that is how laws have always actually functioned. In 2024 the Court overturned it. Now a corporation that does not want to follow a rule goes shopping for a friendly courtroom, files in front of a hand-picked Federalist Society judge, and walks out free of what the agency decided. The slow timing is intentional, because that judge can take years to rule while the corporation keeps doing what it wants, and even a reversal years later does not give back the years it already got. They sold this as reining in big government. What it actually does is free corporations from the rules built to hold them in check, and take power away from the people we elected, because the law we voted for now means whatever a judge we never chose says it means.
Presidential immunity went next. For the whole life of the country, the rule was simple: a president is not a king, and the law reaches him the way it reaches the rest of us. In 2024 the Court invented a protection the Constitution never mentions, ruling that a former president cannot be prosecuted for his official acts, and is fully immune for the core ones. The worst part sits in the opinion itself. The justices admitted no court had ever drawn the line between an official act and a private one, and then they refused to draw it themselves. They created the protection and left its limits undefined.
Abortion was the most publicized incident. For fifty years every woman in the US had a constitutional right to end a pregnancy. In 2022, in Dobbs, the Court erased it and said in writing that a fifty-year-old precedent was no obstacle at all. Whatever a person thinks about abortion, look at what they said about the law itself. Fifty years of settled meant nothing once they had the votes.
The Court just finished overturning protections on voting rights. For sixty-one years the Voting Rights Act protected people of color from district maps drawn to weaken their voting power, and for forty of those years there was a clear test for proving it in court. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court overturned the protection and rewrote the test. Justice Kagan, in dissent, wrote that the ruling reduces the heart of the Voting Rights Act to what she called a dead letter and threatens half a century of progress toward equal voting. Sixty-one years of civil rights law, made unenforceable in a single morning.
The independent regulators went as well. Since 1935, under a case called Humphrey’s Executor, a president could not simply fire the heads of the independent agencies that oversee banks, labor, and corporate power. Those officials were protected so they could do their jobs without fear of him. When Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission, the Court let the firing stand while it took up the question of whether to end the rule for good. At argument in December 2025, the conservative justices left little doubt. Roberts called the ninety-year-old precedent a dried husk. The decision had not come down as this was written, but the Court had already told everyone where it was going.
The shadow docket is the Court’s emergency track for destroying precedent. A growing share of its biggest decisions now get made there, with no real briefing, often no argument, and frequently no signed reasons explaining them. The Court changes the law for everyone without ever explaining why.
And the man at the center of it lectures his critics to go read the opinions and insists this Court hardly touches precedent. Then he sits at argument and calls a ninety-year-old rule a dried husk, ready to throw it out. He says one thing from the lectern and does the other from the bench.
That is the overturned body count, and it is not even all of it. Union fees, gun laws, the spending power, one settled rule after another, each one we were told were, and each one destroyed. The bad guys have been working to fill the courts with activist judges for decades and they completed their takeover. You don’t need to write the laws if you control the interpretation.
So here is what they have taught us, and it is bigger than any one case. No ruling is safe just because it is long standing, just because it is settled, just because generations of lawyers built their lives assuming it would stay. A precedent is not permanent. It is stable only as long as the justices choose to follow it, and these six justices have shown us, case after case, that they will stop following any of it the moment they so choose.
That truth cuts at every judge in the country. The excuse is gone. When a judge now hands down a ruling that hurts people and says precedent made me do it, that judge is lying. Precedent did not make them do anything. They chose the outcome and used precedent to hide the choice. The honest ones will tell you the harm is what they believe in. The rest use a rule they know they could overturn tomorrow as their excuse, the way this Court overturns it whenever the result is one they want.
Now the terrifying part, and we should say it plainly. If these six will delete any ruling that limits the power they want to hand their side, then nothing we count on is safe. A right we think is bedrock is provisional. A protection we never questioned is now a thing they can take whenever they like. That should frighten us.
But that same fact works against them too, and it is the part they did not mean for us to see. People come to us scared, and they ask the same thing every time. But what about the president? What about federal power, what about all the rulings that supposedly forbid a state or a city from acting against the federal government? If we fight back, won’t the courts stop us, won’t precedent forbid it?
Look at where that fear comes from. It comes from precedent. Every rule people point to when they say we cannot act is the same kind of rule this Court just spent years overturning for its own side. The doctrines that supposedly stop a governor from acting, that tell a state attorney general to sit down and defer, are court-made rules, the same as Chevron deference was a court-made rule. This does not mean the law is nothing and anything goes. It means what really held the states back was never the law. It was the habit of restraint, the assumption that a state does not use a power just because it has one. These justices ended that habit. The powers were always there, and the states already hold them.
So go back to the fear we started with. But what about the president? Here is the answer now that we have walked the whole way. The president’s protection from prosecution is itself a precedent, the same kind of precedent this Court told us is worth nothing the second it is inconvenient. They cannot treat it as disposable for themselves and binding on the rest of us. They already showed us it does not have to hold.
And when we write our own laws, we cannot let the other excuse stop us, the one that says do not bother, the courts will only strike it down. That gets it backwards. New precedent gets made by people willing legislate and lead with their conscious. Every ruling we have discussed here started because someone refused to assume the answer was no. If only the bad guys are willing to push the envelope, then they’re the only ones who get to see things change
Precedent is dead. They killed it. That should terrify us, and it should free us, because a court decision only ever bound the people who agreed to be bound by it, and they have stopped agreeing. They opened the floodgates. They already did it. Again and again. The same move that frees them to overturn what protected us frees the rest of us to use powers we have had all along. That is the game now. We can play it too.
Want to do more to fight back?
Below you will find tons of resources, all available for $0.00 in the shop at our Buy Me A Coffee shop, along with physical books available for purchase at TheExistentialistRepublic.com
No comments:
Post a Comment