Democrats are going there on attacking the Supreme Court. Here’s what it could mean
Shifting Tides of Criticism
Democrats are going there on attacking – Since the Supreme Court shifted to a 6-3 conservative majority in 2020, Democrats have consistently voiced discontent with its ideological direction. The tensions escalated in 2022 when the court’s landmark decision to overturn Roe v. Wade ignited widespread backlash. This was followed by the 2024 ruling that granted Donald Trump broad presidential immunity, further fueling Democratic frustration. However, recent actions by the court have prompted a sharper and more pointed response from the party, targeting not just its policies but its perceived legitimacy.
The latest surge in Democratic criticism comes after two pivotal rulings that allowed red Southern states to erase majority-Black voting districts. These decisions, which Republicans have openly leveraged to secure their House majority, have intensified the party’s rhetoric. Where once Democrats focused on ideological alignment, they now increasingly label the court as corrupt, politically biased, and a threat to democratic institutions. This shift marks a significant escalation in their approach, with some prominent figures framing the court’s actions as a direct attack on the principles of fairness and representation.
Political Rhetoric and Historical Parallels
The Democratic narrative has grown more aggressive, with several high-profile candidates and officials invoking the justices’ motives as central to their criticism. Senator Ruben Gallego, a potential 2028 presidential contender, went further than most by stating,
“The Supreme Court is rigged.”
His remarks, shared on social media, underscore a broader sentiment that the court operates as a partisan machine. Similarly, the office of California Governor Gavin Newsom, another 2028 hopeful, described the court as engaging in “raw power politics” and criticized its interference in the Alabama elections. Newsom’s team highlighted the timing of the ruling, noting that it occurred after absentee ballots had already been distributed and primaries were set for the following week.
Senator Cory Booker, who ran for president in 2020, echoed this sentiment during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He declared,
“The Supreme Court is a corrupt court.”
This claim resonates with other Democrats who have recently aligned their critiques with historical examples. In the aftermath of the Louisiana ruling, which weakened the Voting Rights Act, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina drew a direct comparison to the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Clyburn told CNN’s Jake Tapper,
“I think that Justice Roberts is going to take his place alongside some other infamous justices like Taney.”
This analogy suggests that the current court is perpetuating patterns of racial disenfranchisement seen in the past.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison has been particularly vocal in this regard. After the Louisiana ruling, he asserted that the Roberts Court was “the worst Supreme Court in American history,” even surpassing the Taney Court that authored the Dred Scott decision. Harrison’s argument emphasizes the subtlety of the current court’s civil rights rollbacks, contrasting them with the overtly discriminatory nature of historical rulings. While he acknowledges the Taney Court’s legacy, he insists the present composition of the judiciary poses an equal or greater threat to constitutional values.
Delegitimizing the Court: Risks and Reactions
Democrats have long criticized the Supreme Court for its conservative leanings, particularly after the Roe v. Wade reversal and Trump immunity rulings. However, the current wave of attacks suggests a deeper concern: the belief that the court is not merely ideologically aligned but actively undermining democratic processes. Critics argue that this rhetoric risks eroding public trust in the judiciary, a key branch of government responsible for interpreting the law impartially.
Despite the heightened criticism, it remains unclear whether Democrats’ strategy will resonate with the broader electorate. While left-leaning voices have expressed skepticism, the general public appears more divided. A recent Reuters and Ipsos poll, conducted shortly before the Louisiana decision, revealed that while many Democrats question the court’s fairness, a majority of Americans still view it as a legitimate institution. This indicates that the Democratic attacks, while influential within their own ranks, may not yet have swayed the larger public to see the court as hopelessly partisan.
The parallels to Trump’s own rhetoric about the judiciary are striking. The former president has long accused justices of bias and loyalty to his agenda, often undermining their authority through public denouncements. Democrats now mirror this approach, accusing the court of similarly partisan behavior. Yet, the fine line between rigorous critique and outright delegitimization remains a point of debate. While the court’s recent decisions have undeniably favored Republicans, some analysts argue that the Democratic attacks may overshadow the merits of the rulings themselves.
As the 2026 midterms approach, the Democratic strategy of targeting the Supreme Court may serve as both a political weapon and a signal of internal division. By framing the court as a tool of Republican dominance, they aim to galvanize their base and position themselves as defenders of constitutional balance. However, the effectiveness of this approach hinges on whether the public perceives the court’s actions as systemic corruption or as a natural outcome of ideological shifts in the judiciary.
Legacy of the Roberts Court
The Roberts Court’s decisions have sparked conversations about its legacy, with some Democrats drawing explicit comparisons to the Taney Court of the 19th century. The Dred Scott ruling, which declared Black Americans not citizens, is often cited as a benchmark for historical injustice. While the current court’s actions may not be as overtly discriminatory, critics like Clyburn argue that the erosion of voting rights and civil liberties mirrors the Taney Court’s impact. This historical framing adds weight to Democratic claims, suggesting that the court’s influence is not just political but deeply rooted in structural inequities.
Ultimately, the Democratic campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court reflects a broader effort to reframe the political landscape. By attacking the court’s impartiality, they seek to rally support for their candidates and challenge the Republican narrative of judicial independence. Yet, the success of this strategy depends on whether the public will accept the characterization of the court as a partisan entity. For now, the Democrats’ rhetoric remains a powerful but unproven argument in the ongoing battle over the judiciary’s role in American democracy.
