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

Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A new Trump administration policy threatens to undermine foundational American commitments to free speech and association.

Labeling Dissent As Terrorism: New US Domestic Terrorism Priorities Raise Constitutional Alarms

A largely overlooked directive issued by the Trump administration marks a major shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, one that threatens bedrock free speech rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, is a presidential directive that for the first time appears to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone holding a microphone.

Personal stories from constituents can profoundly shape lawmakers’ decisions. This excerpt shows how citizen advocacy influences Congress and drives real policy change.

Getty Images, EyeEm Mobile GmbH

Want to Influence Government? Start With Your Story

[The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."]


Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-California) wanted to make a firm statement in support of continued funding of the federal government’s Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) during the recent government shutdown debate. But instead of making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, she traveled to the Wilmington neighborhood of her Los Angeles district to a YMCA that was distributing fresh food and vegetables to people in need. She posted stories on X and described, in very practical terms, the people she met, their family stories, and the importance of food assistance programs.

Keep ReadingShow less