In an ideal world, the judiciary is like the referees in a democracy. Their job is to make sure that all the players are playing by the rules, that our rights are protected, and that our politicians aren’t getting too out of control, right?

      But what if the referees start calling the shots for one team or the other? Well, that’s the question that’s on the minds of a lot of people these days when it comes to the Supreme Court. The decisions that they’ve been making lately have been controversial, and it’s starting to seem like the Supreme Court is becoming more of a player in the game of politics.

I’m going to argue that this is all part of the problem of democratic erosion. Essentially, the checks and balances that are meant to keep our democracy in line are starting to be altered in favor of the politicians.

The Story: A Court in the Spotlight

Over the past few years, the Supreme Court has made heavy decisions on things like abortion rights and presidential power. Cases involving people like Donald Trump have put the Court front and center in political fights.

But it’s not just that these rulings are controversial. It’s that they show a change in how the Court works.

Usually, courts get their power from being seen as fair and unbiased. But polls show that more and more Americans see the Court through a political lens. People are losing confidence, and decisions are often seen as wins for one side rather than neutral interpretations of the law.

So, is the Court still doing its job as an independent check on power, or is it becoming just another part of the political game?

The Idea: How Democracies Can Fall Apart

To solve this, let’s talk about “democratic erosion.” Experts say that democracies don’t usually collapse in dramatic coups. Instead, they fall apart slowly, often through legal and institutional changes.

One way this happens is through “institutional capture.” This is when political leaders reshape independent institutions—like courts, election boards, or the media—to help themselves gain the upper hand

And here’s the thing: it’s often legal. Leaders don’t need to break the law; they just change it.

So, you end up with a system that looks democratic on paper but doesn’t work that way in reality.

The Supreme Court’s Role

The Supreme Court is a big deal in this process. Because justices are appointed for life, every nomination turns into a massive political battle. Over time, this has made parties focus more on loyalty than on whether someone is a good, neutral judge.

Things have gotten even more intense now. Confirmation hearings have become more polarized, and old rules about working together have gone out of the window.

From a democratic erosion perspective, this is bad news considering courts are supposed to be guardrails. When those guardrails weaken, other problems get worse.

For example:

*   Courts might be less likely to stop a president from overstepping their power.

*   Legal challenges to election rules might be decided based on party lines.

*   People might lose even more trust in democratic institutions.

All of this creates a cycle that speeds up democratic decay.

This Isn’t Just “Politics as Usual”

Now, some might say that courts have always been political. And to some extent, that’s true. Judges interpret laws, and that involves values.

But democratic erosion isn’t just about whether politics exists it’s about whether the rules of the game are breaking down.

In the past, even when justices had their own beliefs, they usually showed restraint and tried to maintain bipartisan legitimacy. Today, those norms seem weaker.

This is super important. As Nancy Bermeo points out, democracies often backslide through small changes that undermine accountability without setting off alarm bells.

In other words, the danger isn’t a sudden collapse. It’s a slow transformation that becomes normal over time.

What This Means in the Real World

The politicization of the Court has real effects on how our democracy works.

First, it shapes policy in ways that don’t involve voters. Unlike elected officials, justices don’t answer directly to the people. When courts take a more active role in making policy, it takes power away from democratic processes.

Second, it changes how people see democracy. If people think that outcomes are decided by partisan institutions, they might just give up on politics altogether.

Finally, it encourages more manipulation. If one side sees the Court as politically aligned, the other side might try to expand or restructure it—leading to a never-ending cycle of escalation.