Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine “initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition”.

~Wikipedia

The importance of this doctrine was never more evident than the recent conclave to replace Pope Francis.  Changes in the Church sometimes occur when a Pope’s thinking, not unlike all of us, evolves based on new experiences and new information.  However, more often, alterations in Catholic doctrine occur based on the priorities of the man who ascends to the papacy, perspectives developed prior to his election by the College of Cardinals.

The Cardinals sent a very strong message to the global Catholic community, and I believe especially to American Catholics, that authoritarianism is leading Catholics down a path farther away from Jesus’ teachings as laid out in the New Testament including the Beatitudes.  Anointing Robert Prevost as the Bishop of Rome was less about his American birth than his experience, similar to that of his predecessor, serving the people of Peru and his commitment to social justice and other New Testament teachings such as welcoming the stranger and caring for the poor or weak.  I have a feeling, Leo XIV’s rebuke of J.D. Vance’s claim that Americans should prioritize love to family before that of immigrants is not the last time this new Pope will begin a sentence, “J.D. Vance is wrong…”

But, as usual, that’s not what I came here to talk about.  There is another, equally important doctrine of infallibility, the one applied to the Supreme Court of the United States.  If put to paper, it might be defined as follows.

Supreme Court infallibility is a dogma of the founding fathers which states that, in virtue of their promise of justice for all, the Court when it speaks ex officio is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine “initially given by virtue of ratification of the U.S. Constitution and and the tradition of legal precedence”.

As with the papacy, directives of the court may change via evolutionary thinking or, as more evident in the past decade, changes is membership. This phenomenon is not new and favors no ideology.   There has been movement to left as evidenced by overriding Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education.  And to the right, undercutting Roe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  As Americans we have a right to disagree with the Court and bring cases before it which might lead to future changes.  But until the re-election of Donald Trump, there was general agreement that federal, state and local governments and law enforcement agencies were bound by Supreme Court rulings.

Not so any more.  When asked by NBC correspondent Kristen Welker if he was duty-bound to uphold the Constitution, which in Article III delegates the authority to interpret law to SCOTUS, Trump replied, “I don’t know.” As pointed out by almost every legal expert, did Trump forget that just last January 20th, he raised his right hand and pledged “to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States?”  The interview seemed to create a permission structure for Trump’s underlings to jump on this “civic ignorance” bandwagon.  Just yesterday, senior advisor Steven Miller suggested that the administration might waive the right of individuals to a writ of habeas corpus, a principle dating back to the Magna Carta and explicitly authorized under Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.  To make matters worse, Miller suggested the administration’s decision depended on whether “the courts do the right thing.”

Which is why the doctrine of SCOTUS infallibility may be more important than papal infallibility.  Sorry Steven, according the Constitution and the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court CANNOT DO THE WRONG THING.  It decides what is right is wrong.  How would Miller feel if a Maryland state trooper walked into the Oval Office and arrested the president for an alleged criminal act.  He would yell at the top of your lungs,  “BUT THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED IMMUNITY TO A SITTING PRESIDENT.”  Yes, it did.  But contrary to Miller’s authoritarian wet dreams, it also applies to the suspension of writs of habeas corpus to detain alleged criminals.

Bottom line?  Failure to accept an edict of an infallible Pope may, as written in the Book of Revelations, land you in Hades for eternity, assuming such a place exists.  In contrast, Trump and Miller want you to believe there is no equivalent if they violate a ruling by an infallible Supreme Court.  Instead, they profess that the people who will end up in Hell are those denied a writ of habeas corpus.  And their Hell is real, concentration camp-like prisons in El Salvador and possibly Libya.

POSTSCRIPT

How ironic that the two challenges to SCOTUS infallibility in my lifetime were voiced by the two most corrupt occupants of the Oval Office who ran on law and order platforms.  In an interview with David Frost, Richard Nixon famously said, “When a president does it…it means it is not illegal.”  And now Trump suggests he is not bound by the Constitution or SCOTUS decisions.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP