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

A Party That Seeks to Nationalize and Control Elections Has Entered Fascist Territory

Donald Trump’s call to “nationalize” elections raises constitutional alarms. A deep dive into federalism, authoritarian warning signs, and 2026 implications.

Getty Images, Boris Zhitkov

A Party That Seeks to Nationalize and Control Elections Has Entered Fascist Territory

I’m well aware that using the word fascist in the headline of an article about Donald Trump invites a predictably negative response from some folks. But before we argue about words (and which labels are accurate and which aren’t), let’s look at the most recent escalation that led me to use it.

In Trump’s latest entry in his ongoing distraction-and-intimidation saga, he publicly suggested that elections should be “nationalized,” yanking control away from the states and concentrating it at the federal level. The remarks came after yet another interview in which Trump again claimed, without evidence, that certain states are “crooked” and incapable of running fair elections, a familiar complaint from the guy who only trusts ballots after they’ve gone his way.

Keep ReadingShow less
Building Power to Advance Inclusive Democracy: The Pro-Democracy Narrative Playbook
Picture provided

Building Power to Advance Inclusive Democracy: The Pro-Democracy Narrative Playbook

Around the world, including here in the United States, evidence shows that authoritarians are dominating the information ecosystem. Orchestrated, well-resourced, and weaponized narratives are being used to justify repression and delegitimize democratic principles and institutions. At the same time, the word “democracy” has been appropriated and redefined to protect certain freedoms granted only to certain people and to legitimize unchecked power. These actors have learned from each other. They borrow from a shared authoritarian playbook to blend traditional propaganda with digital-age disinformation techniques to reshape public perception. The result is an environment in which democratic norms, institutions, and basic freedoms are under a coordinated, sustained attack.

Yet even as these threats grow, democracy advocates, journalists, election workers, civil society organizations, and everyday citizens are stepping up—often at great personal risk—to protect democratic rights and expose repression. They have been doing all of this without the benefit of a research-based narrative or the infrastructure to deploy it.

Keep ReadingShow less
As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again
selective focus photo of U.S.A. flag
Photo by Andrew Ruiz on Unsplash

As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again

I know so many people are approaching America’s 250th anniversary with a sense of trepidation, even dread. Is there really anything to celebrate given the recent chaos and uncertainty we’ve been experiencing? Is productively reckoning with our history a possibility these days? And how hopeful will we allow ourselves to be about the future of the nation, its ideals, and our sense of belonging to something larger than ourselves?

Amid the chaos and uncertainty of 2026, I find myself returning to the words of the writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin. Just as things looked darkest to Baldwin amid the struggle for civil rights, he refused to give up or submit or wallow in despair.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hotels Have a Constitutional Right Not To House ICE Agents

The Third Amendment protects against being forced to house the military. It may also apply to ICE.

Cage Rivera/Rewire News Group

Hotels Have a Constitutional Right Not To House ICE Agents

Hotels across the country are housing ICE agents as they carry out violent raids, detention operations, and street abductions.

Of course people are pushing back. Activists have been calling for boycotts of hotel chains like Marriott and Hilton that cooperate with ICE, arguing that businesses should not be providing material support for an enforcement regime built on mass detention, deportation, and brutality.

Keep ReadingShow less