Scathing analysis rages at Supreme Court's role in returning Trump to White House

During the 2024 presidential race, radio host Charlamagne tha God predicted that if Vice President Kamala Harris defeated GOP nominee Donald Trump, the "corrupt" U.S. Supreme Court would go along with one of Trump's legal challenges and still hand the election to Trump.

But President-elect Trump enjoyed a decisive victory, and Harris subsequently gave her concession speech. Trump not only picked up at least 295 electoral votes — according to the vote count, he appears to have won the popular vote as well.

During his second term, Trump is likely to push the U.S. Supreme Court — which has a 6-3 GOP-appointed supermajority — even more to the right.

READ MORE:'Listen here, sweetheart': Possible Trump AG pick threatens NY’s Letitia James with 'prison'

In a scathing article published Friday, Mother Jones' Pema Levy argued that the John Roberts court has repeatedly run interference for Trump — and helped his campaign more than once.

"Why Americans chose a demagogue to helm their democracy may be partially explained by the fact that, in many ways, the United States isn't a democracy any longer — and in many ways, that's thanks to the Roberts Court," Levy argued. "Our system was never perfect; on a basic level, the U.S. only became a democracy in 1965 when it finally gave all Black people the right to vote. But for nearly two decades, Roberts and his colleagues have done immense damage to the underpinnings of the democracy Americans painstakingly built."

Levy added, "They have reallocated political power from ordinary citizens to billionaires, worsened congressional paralysis, and transformed many elections into meaningless exercises."

The cases that Levy discusses include, among others, Biden v. Nebraska and Trump v. the United States.

READ MORE: Path forward' to Democrats winning may come sooner than you think: analysis

Levy noted that in Biden v. Nebraska, the High Court "blocked (President Joe) Biden's loan forgiveness plan." But she is even more critical of the Trump v. the United States ruling.

"After Trump lost the 2020 election," Levy wrote, "he attempted to stay in office by plotting to overturn the will of the voters, culminating in a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. In the summer of 2023, special counsel Jack Smith brought charges against him for his role in the scheme. A trial was scheduled for March 2024, during the Republican primaries. But the Supreme Court was there to help Trump…. Then, on July 1, John Roberts released a stunning opinion."

Levy continued, "He bought Trump's argument — hook, line, and sinker. Former Presidents are now immune from criminal prosecution for anything deemed an official act. Even evidence of a crime is inadmissible if it involved official acts. The Court, with Roberts in the lead, had not only removed a serious impediment to Trump's reelection efforts — but ensured that should Trump return to the White House, he would do so with more power than any president ever before."

READ MORE: How Garland’s 'truly historic legal missteps' let Trump dodge accountability

Pema Levy's full article for Mother Jones is available at this link.