The Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, (1836-1864) is generally considered if not the worst certainly the most problematic for American democracy in United States history. Taney etched his name in American judicial history with the now unfathomable ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case and the quote which haunts the Judicial Branch to this day. Speaking of Dred Scott and African Americans in general Taney said that, [African Americans] had "No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect." The Taney court's tenure culminated with the election of ardent abolitionist Abraham Lincoln and shortly thereafter all-out civil war. Would it be fair to say the court of John Roberts is dangerous as Taney's? The jury is still out, but the intent is clearly there.

The Roberts Court like the Taney Court seems willing to take any risk to protect even promote the interests those who appear to long for a return to pre Civil War America. These are not just conservative rulings on cases taken up by the Roberts Court based on their merit but rulings carefully selected and delivered like torpedoes to the hull of American Democracy. These people have an agenda and they are executing that game plan meticulously. This isn't an activist court or even a radical court, this is a seditionist, an anarchist court and more specifically a monarchist court.

The members of the Roberts court are daring anyone to challenge their authority as they deliberately pave/show the way the for Donald Trump's fascist revolution to gather steam.

Is there still legal recourse? There is an old axiom in martial arts and self defense, your opponent is most vulnerable when they attack. To achieve what the members of the Roberts court are trying to accomplish they necessarily have to take risks, legal risks but risks nonetheless. The Trump v. CASA (birthright citizenship) ruling while celebrated in the Trump camp also opens up the door unbridled red-state legal and legislative adventurism.

The sword they cut with will necessarily be double edged. They will not be able to kill what hate without killing what they love. The assault on birthright citizenship, now joined by the Roberts court is a perfect example. Trump v. CASA if taken to its logical conclusion would infer that only Native Americans would qualify for citizenship. Which is on it's face laughable because Native Americans were denied U.S. citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was passed. Trump v. CASA is more likely to create a tsunami of litigation than mass purging of illegal aliens.

A serious discussion on court reform must begin now and it's not likely that will happen in congress. It has to be a civil and academic discourse in its early stages in preparation for an opportunity to implement a legislative solution. Ideas that have been floated include, term limits and court expansion. Another idea would be to move away from political appointments and use a system of rotating judges at random from the appeals courts to the Supreme Court for a fixed term. In any case waiting for control of Congress and the White House to occur before crafting a plan would significantly diminish the chances for success. The time for planning is now.