I found this on Facebook. I found it exciting. Read it.
It's about the Hawaii Supreme Court finding that the Federal Supreme Court is systematically undermining our Constitution. Maybe they can do something about that?
--Kim
BREAKING: SCOTUS Accused of undermining democracy.
A remarkable opinion from the Hawaii Supreme Court has become one of the sharpest judicial critiques ever leveled against the U.S. Supreme Court...not because of a single ruling, but because of what it argues the Roberts Court has done to the nation's constitutional framework.
The case itself involved a man convicted decades ago on forensic evidence that has since been discredited. Hawaii's justices ordered a new trial, concluding that due process required correcting a conviction built on unreliable science. But the opinion quickly expanded beyond the facts of one criminal case, arguing that state courts can no longer rely on the Roberts Court as a trustworthy guide for protecting constitutional rights.
Writing for the court, Justice Todd Eddins contended that the damage is structural, not episodic. He argued that the Supreme Court has steadily shifted power away from ordinary citizens and toward presidents, partisan actors, wealthy interests, and government authority while weakening the constitutional safeguards designed to hold them accountable. His opinion cites decisions involving voting rights, campaign finance, partisan gerrymandering, presidential power, reproductive rights, and firearms as evidence that the Court is reshaping the balance of American democracy rather than merely interpreting the law.
The opinion's most striking claim is that today's Court has undermined the constitutional architecture that once protected minority rights and democratic participation. According to Eddins, the Court has increasingly overridden legislative judgments, narrowed individual liberties, and concentrated power in ways that erode the checks and balances on which the American system depends. Rather than acting as a neutral guardian of the Constitution, he argues, the Court has become an institution that is itself transforming the rules of democratic governance.
That conclusion led Hawaii's justices to reaffirm an often-overlooked feature of American federalism: state constitutions are independent sources of rights. When the federal judiciary narrows constitutional protections, state supreme courts remain free to interpret their own constitutions more broadly. In Justice Eddins' view, that isn't rebellion against the Supreme Court...it is exactly how the constitutional system was designed to prevent too much power from accumulating in any one institution.
Whether one agrees with the opinion or not, its significance extends far beyond Hawaii. It signals that some state courts no longer see the Roberts Court as merely reaching the wrong conclusions in individual cases. Instead, they see it as fundamentally altering the constitutional balance between liberty and power, and between the people and the government that serves them.
It's about time someone called out Roberts and the other conservative Justices for the damage they are doing. No matter how good the bribes they receive might be, nothing excuses their steady erosion of our personal liberties and freedom. 
The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not erase it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment