The Court That Serves Power

Two days, two precedents on the chopping block, and one democracy running out of guardrails

By Dr. John Petrone

There is a point where a court stops refereeing the constitutional order and begins rewriting it to benefit the faction that installed it. We have reached that point. For two days in a row, the Supreme Court has invited arguments designed to rip out the structural supports that keep our system honest and balanced. Yesterday it was the independence of federal agencies. Today it was what remains of campaign finance limits. These cases are not technical disputes. They are attempts to permanently change who holds real power in the United States.

The Trump administration is no longer pretending to defend the laws it once upheld. The conservative legal movement is treating precedent like scrap metal. And the Court’s majority is openly welcoming opportunities to widen the flow of political money while weakening the agencies meant to serve the public. As an educator who has spent a lifetime teaching young people about democratic systems, it is wrenching to watch the institutions they are supposed to trust be hollowed out from the inside.

The Court That Mocked Independent Agencies
The warning siren sounded yesterday. Humphrey’s Executor, the case that shielded independent agencies from direct presidential control, was treated not as a pillar of modern governance but as a joke. When the Chief Justice calls a foundational precedent a dried husk, he is not interpreting the law. He is preparing his audience for demolition. Independent agencies were created so no president could weaponize regulatory oversight for political gain. Removing their insulation is the first step toward presidential dominance over every corner of public life.

This is exactly the kind of systemic weakening that other nations experienced before democratic backsliding hardened into something more permanent. When agencies lose independence, citizens lose protection. When citizens lose protection, a strongman gains opportunity.

Now the Court Eyes the Money System
Barely twenty four hours later the Court took up a case aimed at gutting the limits on coordinated political spending between parties and candidates. This is the mechanism that prevents political parties from turning into open supply lines for wealthy donors. Overturning it would transform elections into unrestricted financial operations where accountability disappears and corruption hides behind party labels.

The plaintiffs in the case include JD Vance before he became vice president, along with the Republican Party’s central committees. The Trump administration abandoned the government’s defense of the law and joined the attack. The Court had to appoint a third lawyer simply to represent the public interest because the administration refused. That alone tells you what this moment is.

If the Court tears down this precedent, political parties will be able to coordinate unlimited spending with their favored candidates. It is the final opening of the financial floodgates and the guaranteed entrenchment of moneyed power.

What This Means in Plain Terms
If these two goals succeed, here is what the new system will look like.

• A president controlling federal agencies directly
• Political parties free to coordinate unlimited financial backing for preferred candidates
• Regulatory bodies weakened to the point of symbolic existence
• Elections driven by unrestricted capital rather than voters
• A judicial majority committed to cementing this architecture

This is not judicial restraint. It is political engineering.

The Pattern
There is a pattern across the last several years, and it has accelerated dramatically during the Trump era.

• Dismantle reproductive rights
• Shrink voting protections
• Undercut environmental and labor regulations
• Elevate corporate and partisan spending
• Undermine agency independence
• Normalize executive dominance
• Turn the Supreme Court into an ideological validator

This is the blueprint used in countries that slid from liberal democracy into controlled illiberalism. It always begins with weakening oversight and supercharging money. It ends with citizens having the right to vote but no meaningful power to disrupt the ruling coalition.

We are not immune. We are standing at the point where the system still has time to fight back but no longer has time to ignore what is happening.

What Educators See
As someone who taught/teaches civic structure, leadership, and the responsibilities of democratic institutions, I feel the ground shifting under my students. We teach checks and balances. We teach guardrails. We teach institutional independence. But what happens when the highest court in the land treats those principles as inconveniences rather than commitments.

Students notice. Communities notice. The public senses something is fundamentally off, even if they cannot articulate every detail. The erosion is visible. And the damage will echo across generations if it is not confronted.

How We Fight Back
We push back by refusing to let these rulings pass in silence. We make the public understand what is being dismantled. We demand congressional oversight and require candidates at every level to explain where they stand on agency independence and campaign finance limits. We pressure state governments to create their own protections when federal ones fall. And we organize voters before this Court locks the doors on those protections permanently.

We also remind our communities that no court is the final word if the public decides otherwise. Democracy is not given. It is defended.

Closing Rally
The Court may try to erase the safeguards that have anchored us for nearly a century, but it cannot erase the truth that a free society depends on people who refuse to surrender their authority. This is the moment where citizens decide whether the system belongs to them or to a political movement determined to rule without restraint. We choose. We act. We refuse to yield.

Release all of the Epstein Files Now!