The Supreme Court's Stealthy Enablement of Presidential Power The Supreme Court has long been seen as a bulwark against executive overreach, but beneath recent decisions lies a disturbing trend: the court's willingness to enable presidential power at the expense of democratic norms and the rule of law.
Consider Louisiana v. Calais, where the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act by limiting the circumstances under which states could be held accountable for intentional racial discrimination in redistricting.
The lower courts had found that Alabama's electoral map was drawn with a clear intent to disenfranchise African American voters, but the Supreme Court effectively gave the state a free pass, citing a lack of "sufficient presumption of regularity" and deference to the state legislature.