Throughout the annals of American history, the nation has a long cherished and storied tradition of stability in governmental affairs. Indeed, while the country has endured its fair share of turmoil in the cultural, political, and fiscal senses, and without a doubt many periods of severe strife have gripped the nation, ultimately the United States has always been able to weather these storms of chaos in history because of the strong foundational composition of the governing institutions of the nation. The American founding fathers created a government based around the principles of federalism, checks and balances, and a strong separation of powers.
By creating a federal government limited in its power (and decentralizing that power by providing state governments with a strong ability to legislate), and establishing three separate branches of government, the founders hoped that stability would reign in American affairs and that tyranny and corruption would not easily consume the entirety of the system. This has indeed been proven true for many years, and in the past, while public servants, unelected bureaucrats and political activists in the executive, legislative (and to a lesser extent even the judicial) branches of government have displayed corruptive tendencies, general stability has dominated American politics for the nation’s history. As the country nears its 250th birthday, though, it increasingly appears like on falling apart at the base, foundational level. For centuries, politicians, while often displaying disgust at the decisions of the Supreme Court, the highest judiciary body in America, knew well that precedent and decorum dictated that threats or provocative statements towards the justices would be highly frowned upon, and even perceived by many as anti-Democratic.
In the modern sense, this has all gone out the window. A far-left progressive Congressional Representative from New York, Alexandra Ocasio Cortes, recently vowed to impeach Supreme Court Justices following a decision which granted sweeping immunity for presidents. Cortez abrasively called the decision a “threat” to democracy.
