In 1787, when the Founders met in Philadelphia and set out to create an entirely new form of governance, several things were clear to them, or at least they thought some things were clear.

First, they believed that the branch of government that would pose the greatest risk to liberty would be the legislature. The mere power to legislate was considered a massive and potentially corruptible power. The genius, at least as it was seen at the time, was the idea of ​​dividing legislative power between two different bodies, the House and the Senate, and creating a system, through election, mandate and other details, in both branches would have a natural rivalry and competition for power which would result in much infighting and no body would gain too much power.

The famous James Madison Federalist 10 explains that faction – the desire of people to divide themselves into special interest groups (like, for example, political parties) to gain more power than the sheer number of their members suggests – is correct. Madison’s notion was that of faction, because, he believed, it was “sown in the nature of man” and could never be eliminated. His solution was a big republic, in which there would be so many factions that no one group could ever gain too much power.

Stay informed: Sign up to receive a daily notification in your inbox Monday through Friday

The biggest fear was with the legislature, which is why the U.S. Constitution spends the most time spelling things out. can and, much more importantly, can’t TO DO. So, if you pull out your pocket copy of the Constitution (I’ll wait here while you get it), you’ll see that Article 1, on how Congress is to be established, is by far the longest, the most detailed and restrictive of the texts. all items.

The second most feared power was the executive. With a single decision-maker, the executive branch provided a much-needed skill set: energy, secrecy, and speed, as Alexander Hamilton called them. A president can act quickly if, for example, an invading army lands on American shores, and he can do it with the secrecy and great energy that this task requires, unlike a large number of men gathered in congress to debate the issue.

Yet such a person must be controlled, lest he become an autocrat (even if only on the first day). So the Founders added a number of restrictions (checks, if you will) to a president’s powers, making Section 2, which created the executive branch, the second longest and most detailed of the powers.

Finally, among the “creation articles” is article 3, which created the judicial system. Given that the courts were seen as the least threatening to liberty, since they could only decide what came before them, it is not surprising that Article 3 is by far the least detailed and explicit branch-creating articles. Article 1 is 2,302 words long, article 2 is 1,025 words long, and poor little article 3 is only 372 words long.

So, I believe the founders should appear today (free credit: HamiltonLives.com), they would be shocked by the power of the United States Supreme Court in today’s society and might well conclude, as I did long ago, that the judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, has become A entirely partisan branch of government and should be considered (and treated) as such.

For proof, just look history this week, the SCOTUS jumped both feet into the 2024 elections, with the clear goal of helping the judicial majority’s favorite convicted felon.

For decades, and without serious objection from either side of the aisle, the Supreme Court, and the American justice system as a whole, have held that courts should take no action on cases affecting state elections. approach to these. There was some debate over what “near” meant, with some groups arguing for 30 days before the vote and others saying 90 days, but the consensus was the same: the courts should not take action on political issues as citizens begin to vote.

Again, this has been the norm throughout the justice system. for decadesto the John Roberts Court of today, now likely to be considered by future historians as the only slightly better than Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s court, which is forever tarnished by Dred Scott and other scandalous decisions.

The Roberts court – although, in fairness, perhaps we should call it the Trump court – has routinely and radically ruled against long-held principles. Remember when there was a more liberal court and conservatives railed that the SCOTUS was ignoring decades of precedent? Remember the label “activist court”?

Well, it turns out that “radical intervention by the courts” is more of a point of view. The current court is among the most radical, activist, and precedent-denying courts in the nation’s history. And the decision this week Intervening in Virginia’s elections, allowing the state to purge (and reflect on the historical implications of that word) some 1,600 voters from the rolls of active voters, is stunning in its scale and in its abandonment of ancient principles of restraint judicial.

The case was brought by some members of the radical right, hoping to find and eliminate likely liberal voters (you remember when Republicans campaigned on ideas, not politics). idea of ​​limiting the voting of certain Americans?).

Simply put, the form used for issuance of motor vehicles and licenses in Virginia was poorly designed. Perhaps the man who designed the famous “butterfly ballot” in Florida in 2000 and brought George W. Bush to power has moved to Virginia. About 1,600 Virginians, when filling out DMV paperwork, checked the wrong box (apparently easy to do given the design) and declared themselves non-citizens, which, of course, would make them ineligible to vote.

Rather than sending a clarification to these voters months ago, asking them to specifically affirm or deny their citizenship, GOP leaders in Virginia announced they would simply purge all of these people. Unsurprisingly, lawsuits ensued, and even lower court judges appointed by Trump preferred to let these people “fix” their voting problems rather than allow them to be purged. All of these courts agreed to prevent the purge, up to the Supreme Court. In a one-page notice, the SCOTUS issued an order authorizing the voter purge. And they did this a week before the election, violating decades of precedent.

Given that all three of Trump’s appointees committed perjury during their confirmation hearings (they all agreed that Roe v. Wade was “settled law”), I’m not too surprised at the lack of honor and intellectual honesty, but it remains shocking. A week before the election, SCOTUS ruled in a way that helped a candidate.

We’re lucky that Virginia isn’t considered a true swing state, and I’m sure Democrats there are reaching out to all 1,600 people in hopes of properly restoring their voting status, but I’m still shocked and disturbed by the GOP’s master plan to prevent those they view as, what, domestic enemies(?), from voting, rather than debating the issues.

Chief Justice Roberts, I hope, is deeply concerned about the label that history will assign to his tenure.

It won’t be good.

Hal Bidlack is a retired political science professor and retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught for more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.