Judges Gone Wild

The role of a judge in the United States is strictly defined by the concept of the neutral umpire. This ideal requires jurists to set aside personal politics and rule solely on the law and the historical record. At the trial level this means ensuring due process and at the appellate level it means correcting legal errors without inventing new standards. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate guardian of this neutrality and serves as the final check on the other branches of government. However, the conduct of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch over the last twelve months suggests that this model has broken down completely. These three justices function less as neutral arbiters and more as reliable enablers of an authoritarian executive agenda. They consistently issue rulings that dismantle checks on presidential power while simultaneously engaging in personal conduct that creates the appearance of corruption.

The most glaring evidence of this bias appeared just yesterday in the case regarding the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. The Supreme Court blocked President Trump from deploying these troops against the will of the Illinois governor in a six to three decision. The majority included conservative justices who agreed that the President lacked the statutory authority to use the military as a domestic police force in this context. Yet Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented. They voted to allow the President to deploy soldiers onto American streets despite the clear limitations in federal law regarding the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Their dissent did not rely on a strict reading of the statute but rather on a deferential view of executive power that effectively places the President above the law. This vote highlights a disturbing willingness to abandon legal constraints to support a specific political objective.

This dissent in the Chicago case is not an isolated incident but part of a sustained pattern from the last year. These three justices were central to the immunity ruling in July 2024 which invented the concept that a President is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. That decision fundamentally altered the structure of the American government by converting the presidency into an office with king like privileges. They also pushed to dismantle the administrative state in cases like *Loper Bright* which stripped experts of their ability to interpret regulations and handed that power to judges. In December 2025 they signaled a readiness to overturn *Humphrey’s Executor* during arguments in *Trump v. Slaughter* which would allow the President to fire heads of independent agencies without cause. Each of these actions concentrates power in the hands of one person and removes the legal guardrails that prevent dictatorship.

The question of how a judge reaches this level while holding such apparent bias points directly to the selection system built by activists like Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. This network spent decades creating a pipeline to groom lawyers who prioritize ideology over neutrality. The system selects candidates who have demonstrated a commitment to specific political outcomes rather than an open mind. Donors pour millions into this network to ensure that the jurists who reach the Supreme Court are preselected to rule in favor of corporate and executive power. This explains why these justices seem immune to the logic of the law when it conflicts with their ideological project. They were likely chosen precisely because they could be trusted to ignore legal norms when necessary to advance the movement.

This ideological capture is compounded by a lack of ethical constraints that would force a lower court judge to step aside. Justice Thomas has accepted millions of dollars in luxury travel and gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow who has deep connections to conservative politics. Justice Alito accepted luxury fishing trips from Paul Singer and allowed political flags to fly at his homes while hearing cases related to the January 6 attack. Justice Gorsuch has faced scrutiny for property sales to individuals with business before the court. In a lower court these conflicts would mandate recusal. At the Supreme Court the justices decide for themselves whether they are biased. This loophole allows them to rule on cases where they have a clear personal or ideological stake.

The combination of unchecked financial relationships and a selection process designed to filter out independent thinkers has produced a bloc of three justices who appear completely unmoored from the concept of neutrality. Their dissent in the Chicago National Guard case proves that they will support executive overreach even when other conservative colleagues find it unlawful. They have abandoned the role of the umpire to become players in the political game. This reality suggests that the current crisis is not a matter of random chance but the result of a deliberate and expensive campaign to capture the highest court in the land. The system assumes judges will act with honor but it has no mechanism to correct course when they refuse to do so.

Happy Christmas!