'Sketchy power': Analyst explains why SCOTUS will likely halt Trump’s dictatorial quest

During a recent town hall in Iowa hosted by Fox News' Sean Hannity, former President Donald Trump said he would govern as a dictator, "but only on day one" of his presidency if elected to a second term in the White House.

While the remark has caused alarm, Bloomberg opinion columnist Francis Wilkinson wrote that Trump's quest of becoming a dictator would likely come to a screeching halt if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had its way. Wilkinson clarified that SCOTUS wouldn't stop Trump out of any obligation to uphold the rule of law, but simply because Trump's authoritarian ambitions would disrupt the "collective kingship" of the nation's highest court.

"In its current polarized state, the US is governed by unelected right-wing activists working in concert with six unelected jurists on the high court," Wilkinson wrote. "All that power vested in a handful of Republican judges is a pretty dodgy matter. But it’s also pretty heady... The fastest way for Chief Justice John Roberts and company to become irrelevant is for their quasi-kingship to be supplanted by a MAGA dictatorship."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Wilkinson wrote that "there isn't much in it for the justices" to uphold Trump's stated plans to consolidate executive power, circumvent traditional checks and balances and flout the rule of law. He argued that because SCOTUS holds a considerable amount of power with the ability to override both the presidency and Congress if it chooses to, it isn't likely to cede that power to an executive wishing to govern unilaterally.

"Here’s how a bill becomes law in 2023: A right-wing activist, or a MAGA state office holder, files a lawsuit — often in Texas, where judge-shopping has become as common among conservatives as a trip to Hobby Lobby. After the ruling is handed down, the loser appeals to the far-right 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. From there, it’s just a skip and a jump to the Supreme Court in Washington, where six judges craft the conservative legislation that will bind the entire nation," Wilkinson wrote. "Does the federal government, under the direction of the Democratic president, really have the power to enforce its own rules? The conservative justices will decide."

"After all, what use would Trump, unleashed in a second term, have for a Supreme Court? No longer constrained by rule-of-law RINOs, the unfettered MAGA king would be the ultimate decider," he continued. "The conservative court would become a MAGA appendix. The court would only be noticed if it caused a problem — and the problem, or problems, could be removed (with the help of allies such as [Speaker of the House Mike] Johnson)."

In his column, Wilkinson hypothesized that if the former president is convicted in one of his four criminal trials happening in 2024, he will likely appeal that verdict all the way to SCOTUS. He argued that rejecting Trump's bid to overturn his conviction is a win-win for SCOTUS' 6-3 conservative majority — particularly for Trump appointees like Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — as they get to "have their constitutional cake and eat it."

READ MORE: Supreme Court faces a 'desperate race against time' to avoid a 'Constitutional crisis'

"They can be public champions of the law while entrenching their own sketchy power. This is likely an especially appealing combo for the three justices appointed by Trump," Wilkinson wrote. "Forever tainted by association with a lawless demagogue, they would have another opportunity to scrub the stain, as they did when they rejected Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election."

Read Wilkinson's full column by clicking here.