Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Supreme Court is a threat to American democracy

Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was a wake-up call for Americans who had grown complacent about their rights and freedoms. The court's decision was just the beginning of a series of rulings showcasing its alarming readiness to influence almost every facet of American life.


In a recent move, the court annulled the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old precedent that granted federal agencies extensive regulatory power. This ruling, coupled with the undermining of Roe, reveals a court determined to reshape the nation in its image, regardless of the cost to established law or the balance of power in our government. The situation is not just concerning; it's urgent, and immediate action is needed now.

The high court, tilted sharply to the right in its present configuration, seems determined to impose a rigid and distinct ideology on the nation. It's not just about abortion rights, though the loss of a half-century-old precedent is seismic enough. It's about the court's growing tendency to disregard precedent, ignore legal consensus and side with the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. This disregard for precedent is not just a legal issue; it's a threat to our established law's fabric. For instance, the court's decisions have disproportionately affected women, minorities and low-income individuals These decisions further widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.

The justices' expansive view of their authority threatens the delicate checks and balances that safeguard our democracy. This trend, if left unchecked, could have far-reaching consequences for the health of our constitutional system. When the court intrudes into areas rightfully belonging to the legislative or executive branches, it undermines the people's ability to effect change through the democratic process. Only select judges should have the final say on matters of policy, which are best left to the people's elected representatives. By overstepping their constitutional role, the justices disrupted the careful balance of power envisioned by the Framers and diminished the citizenry's voice and power. In a representative democracy, the people must have a meaningful avenue to share in the country's direction. When the court legislates from the bench, it circumvents this process and consolidates excessive power in the judicial branch. This erosion of checks and balances is a dangerous trajectory that could ultimately imperil the stability and resilience of our democratic institutions.

The Supreme Court's recent decisions demonstrate a court in thrall to ideology rather than a moral commitment to the law. They expose the dangers of lifetime appointments and the court's lack of accountability. They underscore the urgent need for reform, whether through term limits, expansion of the court or some other mechanism to restore its balance and legitimacy. The need for reform is not just required; it's pressing, and our advocacy can make a difference. Moreover, the court's overreach threatens to alienate Americans from their democracy. When citizens see their elected representatives stripped of power and their votes rendered meaningless by unelected judges, they lose faith in the system. They grow apathetic, disengage from the political process and cede the field to extremist minorities.

The court's expanding reach presents a grave danger: not just the loss of this right or that, but the potential hollowing out of our democracy. The court needs to understand that its vast power is not without limits. If it does not voluntarily pull back from the brink, then the other branches of government and the people themselves must step in to restore the balance. The potential dismantling of democracy is an existential concern that we must all address. The fight to save democracy is not just about the next or future election. It's a generational struggle to ensure that our system of government remains accountable to the people above the shouts of a reactionary elite. The threat to our democracy is accurate, and we all have a responsibility to protect it.

The Supreme Court's recent power grab poses a threat not just to specific laws or rights but to the foundational principles of our democracy itself. Regardless of our political leanings, every American who cares about the future of our republic must recognize the danger this shift represents. In their rush to impose a narrow and divisive vision upon the nation, the court's ideologues have upset the delicate balance of power our system depends on. They have chosen to ignore decades of legal precedent, dismissing the people's will and our elected representatives' role in shaping the country's laws. This court's practices are not just an attack on certain cherished rights, though those are also undoubtedly under threat. It is a threat to the very essence of our self-governance, to the idea that, in a democracy, it is the people who ultimately determine the nation's direction.

We cannot afford to be complacent in the face of this threat. The court's actions demand a swift and decisive response from all of us. We must organize, mobilize and make our voices heard in the streets and at the ballot box. We must demand that our elected officials take action to check the court's power and defend the rights and principles that are under attack. This can be done through civic actions like contacting elected officials, participating in peaceful protests or voting in upcoming elections.

This will not be an easy fight and will only be won over time. But if we cede the field to the court's ideologues and allow them to reshape our country without resistance, we risk losing a few cherished freedoms and the heart of our democracy itself. Your engagement is crucial in this fight. Every voice matters, and every action counts. Together, we can and must defend the republic and ensure that it remains the people who have the power in the United States.


Read More

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bomb First, Debate Later: The Hidden Cost of How America Makes War Now

A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city, on March 02, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

Getty Images, Contributor

Bomb First, Debate Later: The Hidden Cost of How America Makes War Now

For those old enough to remember the first Gulf War, the scenes feel painfully familiar: smoke rising over Tehran. Babies carried out of a bombed-out hospital in incubators. Missiles striking cities across the Middle East. Oil markets in turmoil as Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz. The war of choice that began with Israeli and American strikes on Iran is widening by the hour, pulling in multiple countries, including NATO allies, and producing casualties that mount by the day.

Much of the early discussion has focused on obvious questions. How far will the conflict spread? How many people will die? What will it cost the United States in money, lives, and global stability?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

Could Trump declare a national emergency to control voting in the 2026 midterms? An analysis of emergency powers, election law, and Congress’s role in protecting democracy.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

To Save Democracy, Congress Must Curtail the President’s Emergency Powers

On February 26, the Washington Post reported that allies of President Trump are urging him to declare a national emergency so that he can issue rules and regulations concerning voting in the 2026 election. The alleged emergency arises from the threat of foreign interference in our electoral process.

That threat is based on now fully debunked reports that China manipulated registration and voting in 2020. The National Intelligence Council explained that there were “no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting results.”

Keep ReadingShow less