Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Supreme Court, is the shortest of the three articles that define the institutions and powers of the three branches of the United States Government. That brevity underscores, somewhat ironically, what many would regard as a self-evident contemporary fact: the Supreme Court today is the only one of those three branches that is functioning properly.
Which is certainly something to ponder in the weeks before the nation marks its 250th birthday on July 4.
Congress has become so dysfunctional that, a year ago, I gently asked a dozen Members of the House of Representatives whether Article I of the Constitution, which vests national legislative powers in the Congress, had been effectively repealed in the minds of many of their colleagues.
According to the Pew Research Center, Congress, whose primary power is the power of the purse, has only completed its budget work on schedule four times in the past fifty years; on all other occasions, the cheap trick of passing “continuing resolutions” has covered for the solons’ incapacity or unwillingness to do their jobs. As for the Senate, it routinely and supinely confirms manifestly incompetent men and women to high office, a practice that effectively eviscerates its constitutional role of giving advice and consent to candidates for crucial executive branch positions.
As for the presidency, well, as my friend Peggy Noonan put it in her Wall Street Journal column of April 4, we are now governed by the “mood of one man. With the great majority of past presidents personal mood didn’t have much precedence. … But mood now mows down all.” And fear of presidential mood swings reduces even serious public officials to “anxious ferrets sparring with Sunday news show anchors.”
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, regularly does its constitutional duty and is governed by reason and serious debate, not by partisan political calculations or the justices’ mood of the day.
It is my privilege to know several members of the current Supreme Court. And on the basis of four decades of Washington experience, I can say, without any fear of exaggeration, that these are among the finest public servants I have ever met. They do their jobs without fear or favor. They and their families suffer from the inconveniences (and worse) of having to endure constant security protection from a lunatic fringe: one that finds encouragement from the likes of Chuck Schumer, who infamously warned Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh that “you won’t know what hit you” if future abortion cases got decided in a way that displeased the Senate minority leader.
Then there was that malodorous “Truth Social” post of last March, in which Mr. Trump declared that “Our Country was unnecessarily RANSACKED by the United States Supreme Court, which has become little more than a weaponized and unjust Political Organization.” Why this splenetic presidential eruption? Because the justices remembered that their sworn allegiance was to the Constitution, not to Donald J. Trump, who petulantly labeled them “completely inept and embarrassing.”
The Democratic Party is now embracing numerous proposals for Supreme Court “reform”—adding four justices to the current nine; denying the Court the right to determine which cases it will decide; term-limiting the justices — that would thoroughly politicize the Court and effectively destroy it as an independent institution of the federal government.
Why is this happening? Various pseudo-rationales are offered. But the bottom of the bottom line, previewed in Senator Schumer’s rhetorical bullying of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, is that this Supreme Court had the audacity to reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 SCOTUS decision that invented a right to abortion out of thin air—a decision deplored by ultraliberal legal scholar and future Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox as lacking a “principled” legal foundation.
Some years ago, I was speaking with a bishop about his first experience of the bishops’ conference, which by ill luck happened to be the June 2002 Dallas meeting to address the sexual abuse crisis. An elderly bishop came up to the newbie, welcomed him to the conference, and then said, wistfully, “This used to be fun.” One can imagine a parallel situation in which the ghosts of such 19th-century giants as John Marshall and Joseph Story lament to Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas—the usual targets of Democratic, media, and lunatic opprobrium—“This used to be fun.”
Serious citizens, though, will give thanks on this semiquincentennial that our country can still produce constitutionally grounded jurists who regard their job as a patriotic duty and courageously honor their oath of office.
(Note: George Weigel’s column ‘The Catholic Difference’ is syndicated by the Denver Catholic, the official publication of the Archdiocese of Denver.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
the supreme court – a ridiculous and pretentious title – has a very sad history of radically immoral and illegal decisions – let’s just mention legalizing slavery and legalizing murder of Holy Innocents in the womb as two of their most remarkable crimes against humanity and Almighty God.
I share the view, strongly limited by the word “today,” that the majority of justices on the Supreme Court are making the court “function properly.”
I would venture to say however, that this has been a very recent exception to its prevailing pattern over the recent decades, and it must be noted that the only reason that this is happening is because President Trump (who Mr. Weigel’s loathes) was elected in 2016, and who succeeded in establishing the current conservative majority of the Supreme Court, by successfully nominating 3 of the 6 members of the conservative majority, who were in turn approved by the Senators in advice and consent (which function Mr. Weigel claims the Senate is failing to properly perform).
So to sum up, the current Supreme Court that Mr. Weigel lauds was made possible by the President Mr. Weigel loathes and the Senate which Mr. Weigel insists is dysfunctional.
Mr. Weigel’s conclusion preferring the current Supreme Court does not seem to support his judgment about the functioning of the 2 other branches that he disdains.
And as to the Congress and the budget function, it ought to be noted that 11 of 12 portions of the budget were done on time in regular order, and the only part left undone, due to the Democrat Minority, aided by their RINO counterparts, both of whom are working to preserve and resume the massive illegal immigration inflicted on the public by the senile POTUS Biden, puppet during the 3rd term of the Marxist (Barry Sotero) Obama.
And curiously this massive illegal immigration seems to be the political desire of not only in US political circles, and their counterparts in the EU, but a political desire tantamount to a sacrament in the eyes of the Pontiff Leo and the USCCB semi-governmental agency.
But I digress.
In closing, while I don’t personally prefer some of President Trump’s vocalizing, I voted for him all 3 times, and I thank God that he was elected repeatedly, because I am fairly certain that if we had a president whose personal style was more pleasing to Mr. Weigel, we would have nothing left of our civil society but the tyranny of the Jacobin Obama-bots, and the unconvincing and unavailing nostalgia of the Neo-Conservative salon.
I pray that God will bless America, and that enough Americans will continue to place their trust in Him.
I voted for Mr. Trump 3x’s also & have no regrets other that than he lost the 2nd time. I’m very grateful too, for the good Supreme Ct. justices we have & hope we might gain more in the future.
In other words-Trump stacked the court just as the democrats did previously and threaten to do again. This is a weakness in our system and will happen again if circumstances permit.
“To the victor belongs the spoils “ human nature, my friend.
You validate a foolish comment Brother? It is not true that placing conservatives on the Court is a case of “stacking” the Court, but it is a return to a level of sobriety. The Constitution is a conservative anti-trust document against government power, and conservatives are what they are because they are specifically not ideologues in any way for seeking to restore recognition of and acceptance of limitations on government.
No Mr. Connor:
In the US, “stacking the court” means adding justices beyond the 9 ling-established, to change the majority by outnumbering them.
Nominating judges otherwise, according to the President’s political preferences, is simply standard political procedure.
“In the US, “stacking the court” means adding justices beyond the 9 ling-established, to change the majority by outnumbering them.”
Only seriously attempted by bone fide leftist icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
It ended after 168 days when the attempt of Senate majority leader Joe Robinson’s attempt at holding the Senate hostage in a hot room and turning the effort into a war of attrition ended with his heart attack and death.
Every once in a while a politician falls on his own petard.
You are too logical, Chris. See how the Church leaders put their “feelings” first above logic. And BTW, the Pope talks much about how other countries should be so welcoming of illegals but see what he does in his own domain:
Vatican Promises Stiff Penalties for Illegal Aliens Crossing its Border
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/
How applicable here are Jesus words: “Pharisees and scribes, hypocrites!”
You definitely do not want to click the link below if you’re hoping for a Trump resurrection, Chris.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/23/trump-approval-rating-record-low-poll/90662565007/
Gerard:
I realize that your preferred candidate lost the last election.
Your recommended info might be better read twicw by yourself, to keep the click count up.
USA Today is liberal. Their presumptuous polling reaches like-minded people in order to create a false narrative.
“I share the view, strongly limited by the word “today,” that the majority of justices on the Supreme Court are making the court “function properly.””
Since the world proper(ly) implies measurement or comparison to some standard, the question is, what is that standard?
The powers of the Supreme Court were enumerated in the Constitution, but amplified in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)-in large part to extricate John Marshall from the predicament of acknowledging that Mr. Marbury had a right to receive a commission that Marshall failed to deliver before the expiration of his term in office and Madison as the incoming Secretary of State refused to deliver, since he was ordered by Jefferson to withhold it. Jefferson wasn’t going to reward an Adams’ crony when Adams and Jefferson just completed the first great presidential donnybrook.
So, Marshall acknowledged Marbury’s right, but refused to order its completion, relying on an argument that the the SCOTUS wasn’t the proper court of original jurisdiction. However to do so required them to find a way to dispense with the Judiciary Act of 1789.
They did so by creating the right of judicial review. This is the sort of legerdemain used to defend this decision. “Although the court’s opinion in Marbury established the power of judicial review in American federal law, it did not invent or create it.” It wasn’t exercised again until Dred Scott v. Sandford,[a] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)-and that didn’t exactly accrue to the Court’s benefit.
Article III gives Congress the right to constrain the Courts, and I remember reading briefly, there was some consideration to attempting to use that power of Congress to define marriage as part of the exceptions and limitations of the court. Indeed we live under Anthony Kennedy’s “ponderous self importance”, “leaps of logic” and “worship of state power”.
Until the Supreme Court has its leash yanked (and I’m not holding my breath), it will continue to act improperly, imperiously and capriciously, occasionally reversing itself as if to prove the point. See Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940), reversed by West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). individual justices William Douglas and Hugo Black changed their positions.
I submit the Court has been operating improperly for 223 years. Judicial review is not a constitutional grant of authority it was conjured from English common law-a peculiar reliance since the point of the founding was to break with England.
“As for the presidency, well, as my friend Peggy Noonan put it…”
I don’t think that quoting Peggy Noonan in support of your TDS does much to prove your point.
Given that the most recently completed Supreme Court session produced a number of 5 to 4 decisions and a number of decisions where a couple of “conservative” justices sided with the 3 liberals one would have to ask which justices, in your words, are “constitutionally grounded.”
Let us be honest, what The Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade was to make the erroneous claim that all men are not created Equal in Dignity, while being complementary as beloved sons and daughters, but rather our forefathers erred when they stated, unanimously:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, which is the first principle, the very Spirit upon which The Constitution of The United States rests, and upon which “The Governments instituted among Men derive their just powers”.
How else could they possibly make the claim that our unalienable Right To Life, the securing and protection upon which our unalienable Right to Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness depends, is a State’s Right issue and not a God endowed unalienable Right that cannot be relinquished, unless they claimed it has now become necessary and proper to exclude those beloved sons and daughters residing in their mother’s womb, as if some human persons, some sons and daughters of human persons, are not, in essence, human persons from the moment of conception, which is clearly an error in Substantive and thus Procedural Due Process Law.
Truth begets Truth, while error begets error, and the fact is, you have been you, from the moment you were created, at conception, which is not the same moment you came forth from your mother’s womb.
The only Justice’s that could possibly be “constitutionally grounded” are those who affirm that all human persons have been endowed by God, with their inherent unalienable Right to Life, the securing and protection upon which our inherent unalienable Right to Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness depends at the moment of their creation at conception, which is not the same moment you came forth from your mother’s womb. Why don’t we ask the Supreme’s whether all persons have been created equal in dignity at conception or is it possible for human persons to conceive a son or daughter, who is not, in essence a human person. That is the supreme question one must ask The Supremes to determine if they no longer believe that all human persons have been created equal in Dignity.
Regrettably, Mr. Weigel’s commentary seems off the mark. The U.S. Supreme Court is being attacked from all sides — not just from “the usual Democratic, media, and lunatic opprobrium.” The Court is caught up in the same intractable polarization gripping the rest of our political institutions. It would help calm the waters if members of the Court stopped writing Op-Eds and books while serving — and stopped giving politically-charged speeches on college campuses, etc., when out of session. They should stop taking lavish gifts from parties before the court or those likely to appear before the court. They do not need to either reveal or defend their personal political beliefs to the American people. They should let their decisions “do the talking,” backed by well-reasoned legal arguments grounded in the law. They can join the well-paid talking-head opinion game after they retire.
Thank you for your well reasoned comments. The problem is the court is already full of frogs in hot water. They can’t see what the average Joe sees clearly that they are already booked and overcooked only fit for dog food.i don’t think it’s reparable and only a total tear down and rebuild will solve the problem.
SCOTUS jumped the shark with Citizens United. Their rulings have been pay to play ever since.
Another colossal silly comment. In your leftist fascistic ideal state censoring suppression of financing information not favorable to leftist fantasies will be allowed, but thankfully not in America for the time being. But you stil have a monolithic fascist liberal press to fall back on.
So Peggy Noonan, who whispers her comments in public, perhaps her version of selling a phony sincerity, and who trashes Trump with preposterous falsehoods, well, like Weigel himself, is beyond reproach regardless if her political support results in more mountains of corpses of the unborn. Yet the man whose actions dramatically reduced government support of the mass slaughter, throughout the world, despite his weaknesses, receives eternal perdition? Weigel’s fiat is final.