The Supreme Court’s recent ruling greenlighting mass layoffs at the Department of Education sends a clear message: The courts no longer belong to the Democrats.
For decades, Democrats relied on judges to impose policies they couldn’t pass through Congress. But that strategy has collapsed. With a conservative majority now on the bench, the judicial workaround has given way to constitutional limits — and the left is losing.
Every time Democrats sue to block Trump’s orders, they hand him another opportunity — and this court is more than ready to lock in conservative victories for a generation.
In the final week of its 2024-2025 term, the high court:
In high-stakes emergency cases, Trump keeps winning — notching victories in nearly all 18 Supreme Court petitions. That includes greenlights to deport migrants to third countries and enforce the transgender military ban.
Democrats thought they could run out the clock with courtroom delay tactics. Instead, they handed Trump a fast pass to the one branch he dominates.
Only one branch of government speaks with a single, constitutionally defined voice — the executive. And right now, that voice belongs to the president, no matter how loudly the deep state screams.
Unlike the executive, Congress isn’t built for speed. It’s a fractured, slow-moving body by design — hundreds of voices split by region, party, and ego. The judiciary can splinter, too, with power scattered across lower courts nationwide.
But the Supreme Court? That’s a different story.
With a 6-3 conservative majority, Trump holds a 2-to-1 advantage. Imagine if Republicans had that kind of dominance in Congress.
Trump wouldn’t be scraping by with a razor-thin 220-212 majority in the House. His agenda would cruise through. In the Senate, forget the 60-vote filibuster firewall — Trump’s bills would pass outright.
Reconciliation wouldn’t be a high-wire act. It would be routine. No more watching the Senate parliamentarian gut key provisions from his One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Granted, the Supreme Court can’t launch policy offensives like Congress or the White House. It waits for cases to land.
But thanks to Democrats, those cases keep coming. Every time they sue to block Trump’s executive orders, they hand him another opportunity — and this court is more than ready to lock in conservative victories for a generation.
For decades, Democrats treated the courts as a shortcut to power. When they couldn’t pass laws, they let judges do the work. Roe v. Wade was the crown jewel — a sweeping federal abortion mandate they never could have gotten through Congress. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg admitted the legal reasoning was flimsy.
They used the same playbook to expand the welfare state and rewrite social policy from the bench. Judicial activism became the norm, and both sides played the game. But Democrats played it harder — and now the rules are turning against them.
What once looked like a string of permanent victories has turned into a pipeline of defeats. Every lawsuit they file hands Trump’s Supreme Court another shot at affirming his agenda. Even when he technically loses, the rulings often leave behind a roadmap showing exactly how to win the next round.
RELATED: Supreme Court grants massive victory to Trump administration on cutting down Department of Education
Democrats’ Supreme Court problem could get a lot worse. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s oldest liberal at 71, has Type 1 diabetes and a history of health problems. If she steps down during Trump’s term, he could lock in a 7-2 conservative majority.
And if either Clarence Thomas, 77, or Samuel Alito, 75, decides to retire, Trump could replace them with younger conservatives — extending the court’s rightward tilt for decades.
Trump has every incentive to issue bold executive orders. Each lawsuit the left files creates another opening for the Court to back him — and turn temporary wins into permanent precedent.
By chasing headlines and placating the base with short-term court fights, Democrats are handing Trump the long game. Their decades of judicial overreach have backfired. The courts they once controlled now serve as Trump’s most powerful weapon.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) appeared on Friday to accuse Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh of lying when the Senate was considering their Supreme Court nominations.
After the Supreme Court officially overturned abortion precedents in a 6-3 ruling on Friday, Collins released a statement saying Barrett and Kavanaugh voted in an "inconsistent" manner with what they promised during their confirmation hearings.
"This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon," Collins said.
She added, "Throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for half a century is not conservative. It is a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to political chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government."
While it is impossible to know what each justice said behind closed doors, neither justice indicated during their Senate confirmation hearings that they would absolutely vote to uphold Roe v. Wade if the issue came before the Supreme Court.
Under questioning from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-N.Y.), Barrett said she does not consider Roe v. Wade a "super-precedent," a scholarly legal term that describes "cases that are so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling," Barrett explained.
"And I'm answering a lot of question about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category," she added.
Barrett stipulated that legal scholars "across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it's not a case that everyone has accepted."
\u201cJudge Barrett on Roe & super-precedent definition: "to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of question about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category."\u201d— CSPAN (@CSPAN) 1602614525
At his Senate confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh called Roe an "important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times," but declined to say whether he believed it was "correct law."
"This is the point that I want to make that I think is important. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors," Kavanaugh then explained. "So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run-of-the-mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent."
During his private meeting with Collins, Kavanaugh allegedly told the Republican lawmaker that he believed Roe was "settled law."
"We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law," Collins said after the meeting. "He said that he agreed with what [Chief] Justice [John] Roberts said at his nomination hearing in which he said that it was settled law."
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) also expressed frustrations with Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch.
"I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans," Manchin said in a statement.
However, just like his colleagues, Gorsuch did not say that he would uphold Roe if the matter came before the court. Gorsuch said "a good judge will consider [Roe] as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."
"Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered," Gorsuch explained.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) schooled Democrats on Thursday who claim that Supreme Court justices who favor overturning Roe v. Wade lied during their Senate confirmation process.
After a leaked opinion draft written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito showed that five Supreme Court justices — Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — are prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade, some lawmakers have accused the justices of dishonesty.
Every Supreme Court nominee is pressed about abortion precedents and the law doctrine of stare decisis during their Senate confirmation hearings. To avoid unethically revealing how they will vote if the issue comes before them on the court, justices typically provide general answers about respecting judicial precedents.
However, as Lee pointed out, respecting judicial precedents is not and should not be equated with never reconsidering their legality. In fact, overturning landmark precedents because of markedly improved jurisprudence has a long history in the United States.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on Thursday, chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) charged that Alito had been dishonest during his confirmation hearings. Lee swiftly disproved such accusations and gave the committee a pro bono lesson in legal doctrine.
"I remember when [Alito] gave that testimony," Lee began. "He was correctly characterizing the standard under stare decisis. Stare decisis, of course we have to remember, is not an inexorable command — far from it."
Lee continued:
Stare Decisis takes generally the approach that it's better to have things settled up than settled right. Now that's the general principle. But it has limits. One of those limits is— you know, it's one thing to follow precedent when you're interpreting a statute. A statute can be changed; the Constitution can't be changed except under the very rigorous standards outlined by the Constitution and that's why it's difficult — it's intentionally difficult — that's also why we give diminished deference to precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis when it comes to a provision of the Constitution."
After explaining how stare decisis actually functions, Lee observed that "it's actually quite difficult to defend Roe."
"And the fact that you're having to rely on stare decisis to begin with says something about the fact that it's hard to defend Roe as an original matter [and] impossible to defend Roe as a textual matter," Lee said.
"There is nothing deceptive about saying that Roe being precedent is entitled to respect. That's the whole point of the doctrine of stare decisis," he explained. "The fact that the doctrine dictates that precedent be given due respect is not the end of the analysis; it states the reason for the analysis."
"I think it's unfortunate to denigrate the character and truthfulness of one of the most honest, decent human beings ever to serve in the federal judiciary and on the Supreme Court of the United States," Lee exclaimed.
"But more to the point here: I'd hope that you'd stop and consider the fact that nothing in his answers have proved untruthful."
Sen. Lee Addresses SCOTUS leak in Senate Judiciary Hearing www.youtube.com
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often served as critical voice of reason on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, it wasn’t a surprise when he delivered a much-needed dose of reality about the high court’s constitutional role during a rare public appearance late last week. Speaking at the Catholic University Law School, the current court’s longest-serving […]
The Supreme Court has become a paper tiger, failing to hold defiant lower courts accountable when they make rogue decisions.
The actions hemming in the administrative state put power back where it belongs — with elected representatives and ultimately with the people.
As the Fischer case may soon prove, the convictions the special counsel seeks could be for crimes that don’t exist.
Capitol Hill should resist this lie with every constitutional power it can muster.
If the Supreme Court does not overturn Roe v. Wade, its legitimacy is finished, and so is the nation the Founders created. The opposite is also true.
www.theblaze.com
Levin: Precedents and presidents, the left's relentless campaign against Trump
Not a single person has been charged with insurrection regarding January 6, yet the Democrat Party continues to dredge up baseless allegations against former President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, there’s plenty of actions other former presidents have taken that could also be looked at through a criminal lens.
“What if a president ordered the killing of an American citizen overseas or ordered the killing of what he believed to be terrorists but also winds up killing, let’s say, an American citizen who’s 16 years old, a teenager— perhaps the son of one of these terrorists who hasn’t actually committed a terrorist act,” Mark Levin says.
“Is that criminal, guys?” Levin asks, adding, “well, that’s what Obama did.”
“So my question to you is: should Obama have been prosecuted for knowing that he could possibly kill an innocent American citizen while trying to take out his father?” He adds.
This isn’t hypothetical. That case was actually brought to federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Obama administration.
However, the court did nothing.
“It sidestepped,” Levin explains, “that’s what they do for Obama and Biden and their ilk.”
Joe Biden isn’t innocent either.
“Can Joe Biden be sued for violating our immigration laws by people who’ve literally lost family members as a result of that decision? People being killed on the border, people being raped on the border, illegal aliens in the country killing American citizens — can he be used for that?” Levin adds.
Want more from Mark Levin?
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.