Bookend decisions: a blockbuster to democracy?

“Seven Days in May,” "Six Days in January, and "Seven Days in June" all involve a coup d’état — only one was successful.

The 1962 novel, 1964 film and 1994 remake of “Seven Days in May” bears incredible similarities to the political landscape of 2022: A U.S. president with an approval rating of 29%; a disgruntled leader, out of office, who plots a coup to seize power and shatter our democracy; and journalists writing with the purpose to save the nation.

The screenplay for the movie, masterfully written by Ron Serling, portrays political intrigue as vividly as the transcript of the Jan. 6 Congressional Select Committee. The villain in the film, played by Burt Lancaster, “underplays the part of the slightly crazed general and makes him seem quite rational and persuasive.“ Those words are frequently used by staff, reporters and aids of former President Trump when describing him in the days leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The six days in January 2021, we are learning, were a multi-pronged undertaking designed to keep Donald Trump in the White House, subverting the will of a majority of Americans who had elected Joe Biden. Had it been successful we would not live in a democratic republic today. The threat of a Trumpian coup is even more present today. States are enacting laws that will allow state legislatures to override the popular vote in an election, replacing that outcome with the will of the legislative body, not the majority of voters casting ballots. With those laws in place voters in swing states would no longer determine the winner of a national election.

The immediate reaction is that would never happen; the courts would overturn that action or declare the law unconstitutional. A couple of years ago that is what would have happened. After seven days in June 2022 that may no longer be the case.

“Some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen.” “Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd” by Woody Guthrie says it well. During seven days in June 2022, the newly constituted Supreme Court, with its three Trump appointees, did what the former president failed to do: it pulled off a major coup d’état and with just a pen.

Much has been said of striking down Roe v. Wade and some of the West Virginia v. EPA decision, but nowhere near enough. Those two bookend decisions last month will echo for decades unless the complexion of the court changes drastically and quickly.

It continues to astound me that many of those who support the former president, believing that they support a return of power to the people, are doing just the opposite in their support. They fail to realize who Donald Trump really is and what he has done (and is still doing).

The three Trump appointees to the Supreme Court are members of the federalist society (an elite group of lawyers who believe property rights are superior to people’s rights). The federalist society was formed in 1982 by extremely conservative law students from Yale, Harvard and the University of Chicago to counteract the liberal minded law students graduating at that time. The society’s purpose is to limit federal power, protect liberty, as they view it, and interpret the Constitution as it was written (not how it applies to present facts).

Seven days in June give clear definition to the direction of the court. What Donald Trump tried to do over months of peddling his election lie, his court has done in one week with a pen. They have heralded the end of our democracy in favor of rule concentrated in a few. Historian Heather Cox Richardson said of the EPA decision [it] “signals the end of the federal government as we know it.” The court also took up Moore v. Harper involving the “independent state legislatures doctrine.” A conservative decision here would allow a slate of electors selected by a state legislature to replace electors representing the state’s popular vote winner.

The only way to stop this roller coaster is to abolish the filibuster and for Congress to take action protecting voting rights (insuring every vote counts) and abolishing the electoral college (highly unlikely).

— This is the opinion of Times Writers Group member Peter Donohue, who has been involved in the arts in Central Minnesota for more than 35 years. His column is published monthly.

This article originally appeared on St. Cloud Times: Bookend decisions: a blockbuster to democracy?