This is a vital and well-argued piece, and I appreciate the clarity with which you connect legal manipulation to historical revisionism.
From a behavioral lens, what you’ve described is institutional mimicry: when power centers begin to mirror each other’s tactics not just in outcome, but in process. The rhetorical reframing and the Court’s jurisprudential contortions both serve the same function—-to make selective memory look like constitutional principle.
I’ve written before about how stare decisis, when hollowed out, becomes less a safeguard and more a stage prop. The conservative majority isn’t just discarding precedent, they’re rebranding it as ideological decay. That’s not legal reasoning. That’s narrative control.
And when the executive and judicial branches converge on the same strategy, to define “real” history by what flatters their worldview, we’re no longer debating policy.
We’re watching the architecture of pluralism being quietly dismantled.
Thank you for naming it.
— Johan
Professor of Behavioral Economics and Applied Cognitive Theory
Samuel Alito is currently offering an online course in just that! "How to whine like an aggrieved baby when you're the most powerful person in the room and other helpful tips to get your way." It's amazing it never dawned on me that wealthy white men are the most persecuted class in America.
This is an example of principled criticism of John Roberts and the Fash Five. It's based on a theory of jurisprudence every lawyer is taught in law school. The screeching right and the billionaire media claim that liberals disagree with outcomes, probably because they're igonrant hacks. It's a lie.
The MAGAs on the Court reject all principles of law to focus solely on outcomes.
Can we really call them conservatives? What are they conserving? Also, it truly is ridiculous to try to read the mind of the Founders and what they meant 250 years ago in a totally different world from ours. The breadth and depth of this administration's corruption is breathtaking. When will someone with power do something to remove this festering corruption?
I am sure both the corrupt conservative scotus and trump have their own version of the Memoryhole ready whenever convenient. GWB and djt have packed the court with the worst of the wrost when it comes to democracy, the rule of law and the constitution. I can assume that the court will next be going after voting rights where only white people who own property can vote. Why not? Isn't that simply going back to the original interpretation?
As mush as I despise conservative scotus, I am more upset at how dems let repubs run over them with feather pillows. Dems had a chance to make real changes to scotus when they had control but did, as usual, absolutely nothing. Dems continue to play by the rules against the cons, creeps, and clowns that occupy the opposition party. Lers play pattycake against the tyrant bully. As a result, I think dems have about the same approval numbers of scotus at 20%?
trump is a convicted felon, adjudicated for sexual assault, and hes paid fines for fraudulent foundation and 'university' scams. Conservative scotus is packed with corrupt Mr. RV, clarence thomas, a supporter of j/6 in the wife of alito, a drunken, alleged sexual predator, and Opus Dei cultists that the Catholic Church finds disturbing. Those are the fascist, freaks that are interpreting and making law in this country, that was once a functioning, although clumsy, democracy.
If dems ever find their way back to power, and under schumer and co., that is no given, dems need to destroy the court before it destroys America. The current nine justices for life is now life and liberty threatening. Pack the court. If Newsom becomes president, for instance, write an EO that expands the court to 21 and force dems to agree to his picks no matter how liberal the nominee. In fact, skip the senate and just pack the court with an EO. Put term limits on members of 12-18 years and rotate with district court appointees if necessary. But do something to stop this Handmaid's Tale, 1984 court that disregards so much precedence in honor of their own distorted and deranged views. If the court is tobe packed, better it is packed by real humans like Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and William Douglas, or give me an Earl Warren!
American democracy dies a slow death under scotus which is accelerated under the bloated, orange, mentally failing, tyrant. Unless real changes are made, Americans can kiss their democracy goofbye and bow to the next dictator and his court jesters.
Regarding the historical revisionism, I doubt Trump imitated anything the Justices did. Trump never had any concern for actual legalities. He assumed much, if not most of what he did was illegal and acted to hide it, cover it up, obstructed investigations, sued and played legal games to stretch it out etc...
Trump has never read any of the Constitution, just as he has never read any of the Bible. Just as he has never read history as he has demonstrated many times.
Trump tells the stories he wants to hear. He never cares about the facts, he just attacks anybody who claims he is wrong. At his best he just doesn't repeat something wrong.
The fact that the SCOTUS 6 are playing with revisionist history, ignoring precedent etc... is just another piece of proof that they do not care about the constitution, only their ideal of 'how things should be'. They have time and again used lousy rationalizations, warped readings, crappy history and worse to justify their rulings, when they bother to do so. Sometimes they are hyper narrow in their judgement, other times they decide to go hyper broad in what their ruling covers. Sometimes specific, sometimes general... They do not concern themselves with consistency, even with their own rulings. We need to stop thinking of them as 'smart' or ethical. They are not. They are just doing what they need to to get what they want, either out of their own vision of the world or just plain greed or desire for fitting into the world of power they want to create...
They are NOT in "good Behaviour". Look up that phrase in the constitution. Does NOT require impeachment to remove.
A major agenda item, when we have both Congress and the White House, is to restructure, re-invent the Supreme court so it is no longer partisan. This will include changing how Judges are nominated and approved.
Please note the constitution is VERY clear, if you choose to read it, that Judges are not removed through the 'Impeachment' process, but rather stay in office on "Good Behaviour". As a cleanup action, before establishing the new process, remove all the judges who provably did not act in good faith, consistent with their testimony in their approval process, and of course those accepting bribes.
Justices should be selected by and monitored by and removed by an organization of Judges, elected by judges, policed by judges. Establish their own investigators and their powers to monitor the judges and justices behaviour. MOST judges have proven themselves competent, ethical and abiding by their oaths of office.
If this change requires an amendment, do it. After having removed the bad actors and shifted the balance of the court, there should be no difficulty in getting an amendment passed as the conservatives will have nothing to gain by maintaining 'Liberals' in charge. Include in it the 'standards' and what the legal process should be to determine the constitutionality of something, and the weight given to precedent. Noting how the recent court had not followed these standards. Establish ways to ensure somebody has legal standing on any given law to ensure it is enforced. Perhaps establish if originalist, textualist, or other philosophy should prevail and how to measure adherence to it. Perhaps establish a resource of historians with veto power over claims made by the court.
The idea that a single senator can block the approval of a judge in a given state encourages partisanship. We need to remove partisanship from our judicial system.
The Immigration courts and the military courts should be placed under the Judicial Branch. The idea of Judicial Districts can be reviewed.
This is just one of MANY things we need to work out in advance, so we can act decisively when we have power, and so that people will know we are serious, so they will vote for Democrats. We are long past the day when we can fix things with 'Bipartisan approval' and minimal changes.
This is a vital and well-argued piece, and I appreciate the clarity with which you connect legal manipulation to historical revisionism.
From a behavioral lens, what you’ve described is institutional mimicry: when power centers begin to mirror each other’s tactics not just in outcome, but in process. The rhetorical reframing and the Court’s jurisprudential contortions both serve the same function—-to make selective memory look like constitutional principle.
I’ve written before about how stare decisis, when hollowed out, becomes less a safeguard and more a stage prop. The conservative majority isn’t just discarding precedent, they’re rebranding it as ideological decay. That’s not legal reasoning. That’s narrative control.
And when the executive and judicial branches converge on the same strategy, to define “real” history by what flatters their worldview, we’re no longer debating policy.
We’re watching the architecture of pluralism being quietly dismantled.
Thank you for naming it.
— Johan
Professor of Behavioral Economics and Applied Cognitive Theory
Former Foreign Service Officer
In return, a grateful Donald Trump has taught the Court … to whine like an aggrieved white bully.
Samuel Alito is currently offering an online course in just that! "How to whine like an aggrieved baby when you're the most powerful person in the room and other helpful tips to get your way." It's amazing it never dawned on me that wealthy white men are the most persecuted class in America.
Oh, sometimes that whip hand gets terrible cramps!
This is an example of principled criticism of John Roberts and the Fash Five. It's based on a theory of jurisprudence every lawyer is taught in law school. The screeching right and the billionaire media claim that liberals disagree with outcomes, probably because they're igonrant hacks. It's a lie.
The MAGAs on the Court reject all principles of law to focus solely on outcomes.
Can we really call them conservatives? What are they conserving? Also, it truly is ridiculous to try to read the mind of the Founders and what they meant 250 years ago in a totally different world from ours. The breadth and depth of this administration's corruption is breathtaking. When will someone with power do something to remove this festering corruption?
I am sure both the corrupt conservative scotus and trump have their own version of the Memoryhole ready whenever convenient. GWB and djt have packed the court with the worst of the wrost when it comes to democracy, the rule of law and the constitution. I can assume that the court will next be going after voting rights where only white people who own property can vote. Why not? Isn't that simply going back to the original interpretation?
As mush as I despise conservative scotus, I am more upset at how dems let repubs run over them with feather pillows. Dems had a chance to make real changes to scotus when they had control but did, as usual, absolutely nothing. Dems continue to play by the rules against the cons, creeps, and clowns that occupy the opposition party. Lers play pattycake against the tyrant bully. As a result, I think dems have about the same approval numbers of scotus at 20%?
trump is a convicted felon, adjudicated for sexual assault, and hes paid fines for fraudulent foundation and 'university' scams. Conservative scotus is packed with corrupt Mr. RV, clarence thomas, a supporter of j/6 in the wife of alito, a drunken, alleged sexual predator, and Opus Dei cultists that the Catholic Church finds disturbing. Those are the fascist, freaks that are interpreting and making law in this country, that was once a functioning, although clumsy, democracy.
If dems ever find their way back to power, and under schumer and co., that is no given, dems need to destroy the court before it destroys America. The current nine justices for life is now life and liberty threatening. Pack the court. If Newsom becomes president, for instance, write an EO that expands the court to 21 and force dems to agree to his picks no matter how liberal the nominee. In fact, skip the senate and just pack the court with an EO. Put term limits on members of 12-18 years and rotate with district court appointees if necessary. But do something to stop this Handmaid's Tale, 1984 court that disregards so much precedence in honor of their own distorted and deranged views. If the court is tobe packed, better it is packed by real humans like Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and William Douglas, or give me an Earl Warren!
American democracy dies a slow death under scotus which is accelerated under the bloated, orange, mentally failing, tyrant. Unless real changes are made, Americans can kiss their democracy goofbye and bow to the next dictator and his court jesters.
In summary, to quote Justice Sotomayor, “that law school failed”. Six times, apparently.
Regarding the historical revisionism, I doubt Trump imitated anything the Justices did. Trump never had any concern for actual legalities. He assumed much, if not most of what he did was illegal and acted to hide it, cover it up, obstructed investigations, sued and played legal games to stretch it out etc...
Trump has never read any of the Constitution, just as he has never read any of the Bible. Just as he has never read history as he has demonstrated many times.
Trump tells the stories he wants to hear. He never cares about the facts, he just attacks anybody who claims he is wrong. At his best he just doesn't repeat something wrong.
The fact that the SCOTUS 6 are playing with revisionist history, ignoring precedent etc... is just another piece of proof that they do not care about the constitution, only their ideal of 'how things should be'. They have time and again used lousy rationalizations, warped readings, crappy history and worse to justify their rulings, when they bother to do so. Sometimes they are hyper narrow in their judgement, other times they decide to go hyper broad in what their ruling covers. Sometimes specific, sometimes general... They do not concern themselves with consistency, even with their own rulings. We need to stop thinking of them as 'smart' or ethical. They are not. They are just doing what they need to to get what they want, either out of their own vision of the world or just plain greed or desire for fitting into the world of power they want to create...
They are NOT in "good Behaviour". Look up that phrase in the constitution. Does NOT require impeachment to remove.
A major agenda item, when we have both Congress and the White House, is to restructure, re-invent the Supreme court so it is no longer partisan. This will include changing how Judges are nominated and approved.
Please note the constitution is VERY clear, if you choose to read it, that Judges are not removed through the 'Impeachment' process, but rather stay in office on "Good Behaviour". As a cleanup action, before establishing the new process, remove all the judges who provably did not act in good faith, consistent with their testimony in their approval process, and of course those accepting bribes.
Justices should be selected by and monitored by and removed by an organization of Judges, elected by judges, policed by judges. Establish their own investigators and their powers to monitor the judges and justices behaviour. MOST judges have proven themselves competent, ethical and abiding by their oaths of office.
If this change requires an amendment, do it. After having removed the bad actors and shifted the balance of the court, there should be no difficulty in getting an amendment passed as the conservatives will have nothing to gain by maintaining 'Liberals' in charge. Include in it the 'standards' and what the legal process should be to determine the constitutionality of something, and the weight given to precedent. Noting how the recent court had not followed these standards. Establish ways to ensure somebody has legal standing on any given law to ensure it is enforced. Perhaps establish if originalist, textualist, or other philosophy should prevail and how to measure adherence to it. Perhaps establish a resource of historians with veto power over claims made by the court.
The idea that a single senator can block the approval of a judge in a given state encourages partisanship. We need to remove partisanship from our judicial system.
The Immigration courts and the military courts should be placed under the Judicial Branch. The idea of Judicial Districts can be reviewed.
This is just one of MANY things we need to work out in advance, so we can act decisively when we have power, and so that people will know we are serious, so they will vote for Democrats. We are long past the day when we can fix things with 'Bipartisan approval' and minimal changes.
Thank you, Mr. Rupar.