On the Supreme Court's corruption

Josh Marshall goes to town on the institutional decay and anti-historical bent of the Republican majority on the Court:

In our thinned-out political discourse people often use the term “corruption” to refer only to venal corruption — bribes, conflicts of interest mostly involving money, kept justices like Clarence Thomas. That is neither the only nor the most significant form of corruption. The more general meaning of corruption is when a form of rot takes over an office or institution because of systemic and ingrained abuses of power. That is the case with the Supreme Court, and it’s especially dangerous with the Supreme Court because a mix of history and restraint have left very few checks on its abuses. The corruption has spun so far out of control because the six corrupt appointees believe, not unreasonably, that there are zero checks on their abuses. It is that sustained lack of accountability and impunity which moves an institution from one-off abuses of power toward the kind of ingrained corruption you now see in the Supreme Court.

The Court has, with increasing boldness, manufactured new doctrines and purported constitutional dictates which simply do not exist in the document. Often they are implicitly or even explicitly ruled out by the plain text itself. The greatest example is the 2024 presidential immunity decision, a ruling contradicted not only by all the history of the document but its clear language. The framers knew how to create immunity. They did it for the work of Congress. They declined to do it for presidents. The decision is manufactured out of whole cloth.

Closely related to point one, the Court no longer has any consistent or even comprehensible jurisprudence. It simply has political goals it seeks to achieve: presidential immunity, an increasingly absolute right to firearms, a 14th Amendment focused primarily on race not actually existing. Arguments are chosen by convenience simply as backfill to arrive at the desired end. The corruption often emerges most clearly in those brief moments when the logical conclusions of the Court’s own arguments are too much for even it to bear.

While the corrupt majority has consistently advanced and enforced an ideological vision of how the country should be run it has another, simpler brief: not allowing Democrats to govern when they are in power.

My question is, when we return to power in January, what are we going to do about this? I don't have a lot of confidence in House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) or Senate Minority (by then, Majority) Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). We are, more and more obviously, in the "decadence" phase of Glubb's Stages of Empire.