On the Edge: The Supreme Court in Peril
At a packed forum, constitutional scholar Beau Breslin warned of eroding judicial credibility and the fragile balance of American democracy.
By Dan Forbush*
Skidmore College Constitutional scholar Beau Breslin presents regularly at the Saratoga Springs Public Library in its We the People series.
In the Dutcher Community Room of the Saratoga Springs Public Library Thursday night, Skidmore College constitutional scholar Beau Breslin delivered a sobering but spirited talk on the state of the Supreme Court. As part of the library’s ongoing We the People series, Breslin's remarks drew a full crowd—students, retirees, civic leaders, activists—many of whom left visibly unsettled but intellectually charged.
Over the course of an hour, Breslin argued that while the United States has not yet entered a constitutional crisis, it is "closer than we were last time we were here. Very much closer."
His central concern: the Supreme Court no longer functions as the impartial, stabilizing bulwark envisioned by the framers.
"Hamilton warned us," he said, referencing Federalist 78, "that the judiciary has neither the sword nor the purse, only judgment. Its power depends entirely on its credibility. And this Court," Breslin added, pausing for effect, "has a serious credibility problem."
"It’s not because they’re conservative. It’s because of the political nature of their appointment and the decisions they've handed down. Bush v. Gore, Dobbs, Citizens United—these are raw political rulings. And when the Court appears political, it loses the very credibility it relies on to function."
He traced the origins of the current crisis back to the NAACP’s legal strategy in the 1930s and 1940s—a brilliant effort led by Thurgood Marshall to advance civil rights through the courts. “The NAACP used the courts as a sympathetic political voice, as per the courts’ central role in our constitutional design. That success changed the game.”
Breslin likened the current ideological polarization in America to the fervor of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. "It’s not an exact historical analogy," he cautioned, "but it feels the same. Elites and public intellectuals are under attack. Higher education is viewed with suspicion. We're watching the deterioration of democratic conventions, and that’s deeply dangerous."
He was especially pointed about Congress’s abdication of responsibility. "My beef is not with Trump," he said. "It’s with a Congress that collectively shrugs and does nothing. They love that the judiciary takes on the hard challenges. But that’s not how the system was supposed to work."
Might we have a president who defies the Supreme Court outright?
"That's the nuclear option," Breslin said. "I can’t see it happening—yet. But a month ago, I thought it was farther off than I do now."
To explain how the Court has changed, Breslin contrasted the intellectual stature of former justices with today’s appointments. "We used to have giants—Brandeis, Holmes, Marshall. Now we have techno-judges. Presidents want 40-year-olds who will sit for 45 years and vote the party line. That’s not jurisprudence. That’s engineering."
Asked about possible reforms, Breslin pointed to term limits as a practical step. "Eighteen-year terms would help. It would eliminate the age and legacy factors that skew the nomination process."
Throughout, Breslin returned to the question of legitimacy. "The Court doesn’t have an army. It doesn’t have money. All it has is respect. And right now, it’s losing that."
Yet Breslin’s remarks weren’t entirely pessimistic. He urged attendees to remain engaged, to understand that "elections matter," and to recognize that this is a defining moment not just for politicians, but for scholars as well.
"This is the constitutional expert’s fifteen minutes of fame," he joked. "But it’s true. We’re needed. We need to help the public understand what’s at stake, because a Constitution that doesn’t constitute is just parchment."
"Politics is no longer the elegant game Democrats have been playing," Breslin added. "If we don’t change our approach to messaging, to organizing, to social media—we will lose."
Breslin’s intent was not to depress, but to awaken. “The Constitution only works if people understand it, believe in it, and are willing to defend it," he said.
"We’re not in crisis yet, but we’re standing right at the edge."
