The Roberts Court, through its partisan rulings, financial opacity, and ethical lapses, has given the public ample reason to question its integrity. While not proven to be corrupt in the traditional sense, the court’s decisions and behaviors have undermined its legitimacy, making it appear compromised by political and corporate influences. The very structure of the court—lifetime appointments, lack of accountability, and unchecked power—has enabled it to drift far from its intended role as an impartial guardian of justice. Without substantial reform, the public’s faith in the highest court in the land may be irrevocably lost.

The Federalists, particularly Madison and Hamilton, envisioned a legislative branch made up of virtuous citizen legislators who would serve for a time and then return to private life. However, the rise of career politicians has fundamentally changed Congress. The Anti-Federalists warned of this, predicting that the legislative branch would become dominated by elites, detached from the people, and driven by self-interest. Today, Congress is marked by partisanship, special interest influence, and a professional political class that often prioritizes re-election over public service. The Anti-Federalists’ fears of legislative overreach and corruption have been realized, suggesting that their skepticism about the potential for unchecked power and political self-interest was more realistic than the Federalists’ idealistic hopes.

During the debates over the U.S. Constitution, Alexander Hamilton advocated for an independent judiciary, arguing in Federalist No. 78 that lifetime appointments would ensure impartiality and protect judges from political influence. However, the Anti-Federalists, led by figures like Brutus and Mercy Otis Warren, feared that lifetime appointments would create an unaccountable judiciary that could expand federal power, infringing on states’ and individuals’ rights. Today, their concerns resonate as the modern Supreme Court, through decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson and Citizens United, has shaped national policy without democratic oversight, confirming the Anti-Federalists’ fear of an overly powerful judiciary. Both sides had valid points, but the Anti-Federalists’ warnings have proven prescient.

A multi-party governing system offers diversity of opinions, encourages compromise, and prevents the dominance of a single party, ensuring more representation for minority groups. While it can lead to slower decision-making and instability, it promotes inclusivity and prevents the concentration of power. In contrast, a two-party system provides clarity, stability, and efficiency but can lead to polarization and lack of representation. Over time, a multi-party system may be more beneficial, as it fosters a balanced and representative government that better serves a diverse and evolving population.

Eliza Yonge Wilkinson, a South Carolina Anti-Federalist, warned against the dangers of centralized power under the proposed U.S. Constitution. In her essays, she argued that the document lacked sufficient protections for individual rights and advocated for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. Wilkinson joined forces with Mercy Otis Warren to raise awareness of the potential for government overreach, emphasizing the need for explicit protections against intrusion into citizens’ lives. Her advocacy contributed to the eventual adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which continue to safeguard personal liberties from federal overreach.