Interpreting the laws as close to the original intent of the constitution as possible is the focus of the US Supreme Court. Sometimes they do this job well, sometimes they get it completely wrong and it takes years for their mistakes to be corrected. Generally speaking, the mandate of Supreme Court justices is to make decisions based on the logic of the law as it was designed by the Founding Fathers and not allow politics or personal bias to interfere.
But what happens when the country becomes so utterly divided that one side of the aisle views the constitution itself as an illegitimate document? What happens when the goal of that group is the deconstruction of the law in an effort to engineer double standards that work in their favor? How would the Supreme Court be viewed in a world where any deviation from the party line is seen as treason?
Well, we are witnessing the results of this powder keg atmosphere right now. This week has brought a flood of outrage from Democrats and leftist activist groups who have been, for the most part, getting exactly what they want from the government and the legal system for years. So much so that they have now come to expect that every policy and every law will be adjudicated according to their manifesto.
One notable meltdown was that of Democrat Rep. Jaamal Bowman, who accused the Supreme Court of being 'illegitimate' and in the service of 'white patriarchy.' Another revealing leftist commentary was that of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who argues that the Supreme Court must now be investigated for corruption, suggesting that impeachment is on the table.
Keep in mind that this is the kind of behavior that the Democrats used to admonish back when the court consistently ruled in their favor. Whenever conservatives have questioned the constitutionality of certain decisions by the Supreme Court in the past, the argument from the left was always - "Stop whining and win some elections; get conservative justices placed and then you will have some laws decided in your favor."
Now that this has happened, though, leftists are enraged that conservative members of the court would make legal decisions in a conservative way. They are so angry that they are using words like "corruption" and "racism" and "sedition." Instead of accepting the rulings as they told conservatives to do, they are calling for the political intimidation and strong-arming of the court as a means to either tear it down or intimidate it into submission.
We saw this to some degree with far-left activists stalking justices at their homes after they overturned Roe v. Wade a year ago, but the surprisingly weak protests were not enough to create the kind of fear response they desired. Democrats seem to be trying to evoke a much larger and more dangerous public reaction this time around. When leftists start to lose power, they start a riot. It's their go-to strategy.
Setting aside all the media distractions and the charged rhetoric, ultimately it all comes down to the moral questions and how they are framed by the gatekeepers.
Leftists like AOC suggest that the latest court rulings are "authoritarian." Let's not forget that these are the same people that tried to make medical tyranny a perpetual mainstay of our society over a virus that 99.8% of people on average easily survive. Their Supreme Court narrative is quite deliberate; after acting like authoritarians for years with almost every branch of the government and the corporate world backing them, leftists are trying to flip the script and accuse conservatives of being the villainous dictators.
But beyond that, is it really authoritarian to take away entitlements that never should have existed in the first place? Is it moral to support racist policies like Affirmative Action which assign privileges purely on skin color and ethnicity? Is it moral to force US taxpayers to cover the college debts of people who refused to make wise decisions? Is it moral to violate the religious rights of a business owner by forcing him to do work for people that are hostile to his beliefs?
It's hard to say if the political left ponders these questions at all. They don't view freedom in the same way that most Americans do. They think freedom is about equity of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. They don't view morality the way most Americans do. In their eyes, if a legal decision is an obstacle to what they want, it is immoral and it is authoritarian regardless of nuance. We can't reason with people like this, because they don't care about the same things we care about.