Quick Hit:

In a Townhall op-ed titled "The Courts Are Courting Disaster by Alienating Conservatives," columnist and trial lawyer Kurt Schlichter argues that America's judicial system is being hollowed out by leftist ideology and partisan abuse, transforming once-respected courts into political weapons. Schlichter contends that by abandoning neutrality and accountability, the courts risk complete delegitimization in the eyes of conservatives, with consequences that could be “disastrous.”

Key Details:

• Schlichter uses the "Skinsuit Phenomenon" to illustrate how leftists have infiltrated and corrupted the judiciary while demanding it still be respected.

• He criticizes the federal courts for acting politically without any accountability, unlike Congress or the presidency.

• The Supreme Court’s recent refusal to take up key Second Amendment cases while fast-tracking illegal immigration issues has further inflamed conservative frustration.

Diving Deeper:

Kurt Schlichter’s critique begins with a sharp analogy: “The problem with the courts is the same as the problem with many of our other institutions,” he writes. “It’s the Skinsuit Phenomenon.” Quoting the iconic @Iowahawk tweet, he explains the process: “1. Identify a respected institution. 2. Kill it. 3. Gut it. 4. Wear its carcass as a skinsuit, while demanding respect.” According to Schlichter, that’s exactly what has happened to the judiciary — it still demands deference while no longer doing its actual job.

For Schlichter, the courts’ function in civil and criminal law still largely holds, though flawed. “With some exceptions – hello, family law in general, insane plaintiffs’ verdicts, and government persecutions like the J6 pogrom – the courts generally function adequately.” But in political cases, all semblance of legal order collapses. He calls out bizarre legal maneuvers like “ex parte motions to certify a class filed at 3 a.m. on a Saturday morning and granted within 15 minutes without allowing opposition,” something he asserts would never happen in normal legal practice.

The heart of Schlichter’s concern is that judges now operate based on their political agendas rather than the law. “The courts are now doing what the employees of those institutions want to do, following their own (leftist) political agenda instead of the law.” Yet they continue to wield unchecked power — power not granted by voters but assumed through inertia and institutional momentum. “They have the power we give them,” he warns, “and they’re supposed to earn it by performing their function adequately.”

Schlichter also targets the moral legitimacy of unelected judges exercising political power: “If a branch is going to be political, it has to be accountable,” he writes. “What’s the moral argument for compelling obedience to a bunch of people who you will never get to vote for or against in the future?” He asks bluntly, “Why do we even need a third political branch?”

The recent inaction by the Supreme Court on Second Amendment challenges particularly infuriates Schlichter. “The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, with Brett Kavanaugh saying that the Court might get around to hearing the matter in a year or two. Hey, what’s the hurry? It’s only a key enumerated right under the Constitution?” His sarcasm turns to anger when contrasting this inaction with the Court’s urgency on immigration matters involving illegal aliens. “Normal Americans having their actual rights violated? No biggie. Maybe we’ll find time to take care of that in a couple of years.”

Chief Justice John Roberts does not escape criticism. Schlichter accuses him of trying to “play footsie” with the left, mistakenly believing that political rulings can preserve the Court’s reputation. “The only way for the Court to restore its reputation for neutral application of the law is by neutrally applying the law,” Schlichter asserts.

Even originalist institutions like the Federalist Society come under fire. Trump-appointed judges Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett are labeled disappointments. “None of them are reliably conservative,” Schlichter laments. “That’s what we want: reliable conservative votes.” For him, it’s no longer about arcane ideology but about securing victories in what he sees as a politicized arena: “If the courts are just another political arena, I say we go full Maximus and fight to win.”

In his most provocative conclusion, Schlichter questions whether the courts should even be allowed to resolve questions of government power at all if they refuse to return to their original, neutral purpose. “There’s no reason for it, and it deserves no moral deference,” he declares. Until then, he says, conservatives must “accept things as they are,” demanding that judges “vote my way every time because that’s what the courts do now.”