The Supreme Court has been America's last line of defense against tyranny for decades.
But radical leftists have been waging war against constitutional principles since the 1960s.
And now an expert civics professor just issued the Supreme Court prediction that the radical left feared most.
Trump's Supreme Court appointments deliver on constitutional promises
Professor Morgan Marietta from the University of Tennessee dropped a bombshell that has Democrats scrambling for damage control.
The Supreme Court is undergoing what Marietta calls a "constitutional revolution" as it abandons decades of radical leftist legal theory in favor of originalism.
"The originalist shift is revolutionary in the sense of the dramatic change and broad ramifications for public policy, but it is not a new or unprecedented approach to reading our law," Professor Marietta explained.¹
This isn't some fringe legal theory cooked up by conservatives.
It's exactly what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.
For decades, liberal justices treated the Constitution like a rough draft they could rewrite whenever public opinion shifted.
They called it "living constitutionalism" — code words for judicial tyranny.
"Until just a few years ago, the majority of justices would have agreed that the proper way to read the Constitution was as an evolving document," Marietta wrote in The Conversation.²
But President Trump's three Supreme Court appointments — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — changed everything.
All three replaced justices who treated the Constitution as their personal plaything.
Now there's finally a majority that for the most part believes judges should interpret the law, not rewrite it.
Liberal legal scholars panic as their decades-long power grab crumbles
The shift back to originalism has already delivered massive victories for constitutional principles.
Since 2022, the Court has restored Second Amendment rights, protected religious freedom, ended race-based college admissions, and returned abortion decisions to the states where they belong.³
This term promises even bigger wins for originalists.
The Court will hear cases on transgender athletes in women's sports, voting rights, and campaign finance that could reshape American law for generations.
Liberal academics like those quoted in the research are practically hyperventilating over what's coming.
"The constitutional revolution turns to transgender politics" this year, according to legal scholars who see their progressive agenda under assault.⁴
Cases like Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. will determine whether states can protect women's sports from biological males.
Under the old "living Constitution" approach, liberal judges would have invented new rights out of thin air.
But originalists understand the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was about racial equality — not gender ideology that didn't exist in 1868.
Professor Josh Blackman from South Texas College of Law called the Court's originalist shift a "restoration" rather than a revolution.
"The advent of living constitutionalism was the revolution, and the Supreme Court is slowly but surely aligning its doctrines with the Constitution's original meaning," Blackman told The College Fix.⁵
Democrats' legal theories exposed as power-hungry scheme to bypass voters
The difference between originalism and "living constitutionalism" comes down to one simple question: Who gets to make the law?
Originalists believe elected representatives should write laws, and judges should interpret them based on their original meaning.
Living constitutionalists believe unelected judges should rewrite the Constitution whenever they feel like it.
Professor Marietta explained why the leftist approach is so dangerous.
"If a branch of the government can rewrite the contract on the grounds that it is 'living' or 'evolving' in a way determined by them, obviously that will lead to abuse of power," he said.⁶
That's exactly what happened during the Warren Court era of the 1960s.
Liberal justices invented constitutional rights that exist nowhere in the text and imposed radical social policies the American people never voted for.
They turned the Supreme Court into a super-legislature that could overrule any law they didn't like.
But Trump's appointees – for the most part – understand their job is to interpret the law as written, not as they wish it was written.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett vowed this was her view during her confirmation hearings.
"I interpret the Constitution as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it," Barrett said.⁷
She hasn’t always lived up to that but it’s exactly what terrifies Democrats about the current Supreme Court.
The Constitution means what it says, not what liberals want it to say
The cases coming before the Supreme Court this term will test whether America returns to constitutional government or continues down the path of judicial tyranny.
On transgender sports bans, originalists understand the 14th Amendment established equal protection for racial minorities — not special rights for men who think they're women.
On voting rights, they recognize that the Constitution allows states to draw electoral districts without obsessing over racial quotas.
On campaign finance, they know the First Amendment protects political speech even when it makes Democrats uncomfortable.
Each of these decisions will drive another nail in the coffin of "living constitutionalism."
The radical left spent 60 years using the courts to impose policies they could never win at the ballot box.
Now they're watching their entire legal framework collapse as the Supreme Court returns to its constitutional role.
Professor Marietta warned that the shift represents "dramatic changes in the law" with "broad ramifications for public policy."⁸
Those ramifications include restoring the rule of law, protecting constitutional rights, and returning power to the American people where it belongs.
The two words driving liberals into complete meltdown mode are "original meaning" — the idea that the Constitution means what it actually says.
After decades of judicial activism, America finally has a Supreme Court that believes in following the law instead of rewriting it.
¹ Morgan Marietta, "SCOTUS will return law to 'original meaning' this term, civics professor says," The College Fix, October 29, 2025.
² Morgan Marietta, "Supreme Court opens with cases on voting rights, tariffs, gender identity and campaign finance," The Conversation, October 2025.
³ "Why is the Supreme Court Obsessed with Originalism," Yale University Press, October 21, 2024.
⁴ "Supreme Court term begins with cases on voting rights, tariffs and conversion therapy," PBS News, October 2025.
⁵ Josh Blackman, "SCOTUS will return law to 'original meaning' this term, civics professor says," The College Fix, October 29, 2025.
⁶ Morgan Marietta, "SCOTUS will return law to 'original meaning' this term, civics professor says," The College Fix, October 29, 2025.
⁷ "Constitutional law in the age of Trump 2.0: The Supreme Court's 2024-25 term in review," United States Studies Centre, September 8, 2025.
⁸ Morgan Marietta, "SCOTUS will return law to 'original meaning' this term, civics professor says," The College Fix, October 29, 2025.
