As President-elect Donald Trump advances toward the White House, President Joe Biden’s recent pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, raises questions about the stability of American institutions. Although Biden previously vowed not to pardon his son, his reversal led to expected outrage from Republicans and media figures like Politico’s Alex Burns, who criticized the pardon as undermining confidence in vital institutions. Some Democrats also expressed concern. Colorado Senator Michael Bennet argued that Biden’s action “further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all,” as he stated.
While debates over the Hunter Biden pardon continue, critics argue that the real issue lies with the functionality of American institutions. How can Americans trust these establishments when evidence suggests otherwise? It’s time to question the long-held belief that institutions, as though blessed by the Founding Fathers, can independently protect democracy.
On the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and his Republican majority have significantly altered the landscape of American democracy. Their actions, encouraged by a campaign to manipulate the judicial branch, have accelerated institutional decline.
For instance, the 2010 Citizens United decision nullified campaign finance limits, paving the way for political nonprofits and Super PACs. This allowed figures like Elon Musk to exert significant influence, drowning out the voices of ordinary voters. The decision also facilitated Trump’s rise, enabling his allies to spread disinformation while Democrats struggled within a corporate-funded system that weakened their representation of the working class.
In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Roberts dismantled the Voting Rights Act, removing its preclearance requirement. This led to a surge of Republican voter suppression laws, orchestrated by the interests that supported Roberts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously compared the decision to discarding an umbrella in a rainstorm, highlighting its damaging impact.
The 2024 House elections underscore this trend, with Republicans securing a thin majority due to North Carolina’s gerrymandering, approved by the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause. The Roberts Court, dubbed the “Imperial Court” by scholars, deemed partisan gerrymandering a “political question” beyond its jurisdiction.
The consequences of the Roberts Court’s decisions are vast, contributing to government dysfunction and public disillusionment. As Trump exploits this unrest, the Roberts Court, with its Project 2025 faction, eases the path for potential democratic decline.
The Supreme Court’s credibility suffers from scandals, such as Justice Samuel Alito’s public political allegiances uncovered by the Times. The justices often sided with Trump, sometimes bypassing states’ rights in ballot access decisions, as outlined by a conservative originalist scholar in a commentary.
In July, the Supreme Court granted Trump immunity from prosecution for his actions post-2020 election, expanding presidential powers. This decision, while criticized by legal scholars, was pivotal in Trump’s unencumbered election victory and his controversial Project 2025 agenda.
In two months, Chief Justice Roberts will administer the oath to Trump for a second term, a presidency partly shaped by the Court’s influence. Questions surrounding democratic institutions and their erosion remain central in America’s political discourse.
