Editorial brief: Angelo Lynn agrees with Trump’s critique of the Supreme Court — and expands it

Angelo Lynn's Sept. 17 editorial, headlined "We agree with Trump!," responds to President Trump's public denunciation of three Supreme Court justices who opposed his proposal to curb mail‑in ballots. Lynn agrees with Trump's broader claim that the current court has produced decisions that have hurt the country's democratic framework.

Lynn recounts several concrete rulings and practices he says demonstrate harm. He points to the court's 7–2 rejection of Trump's appeal to restrict mail‑in voting, a decision in which many of Trump's own appointees voted against his position. He also lists these items:

• A 2024 ruling granting presidential immunity that, according to Lynn, alters the balance between branches and creates a dangerous standard of impunity.
• Increasing reliance on the shadow docket, which Lynn says has been used to provide emergency relief or authorize executive actions without full briefing or oral argument.
• Court orders that enabled fast‑tracked deportations, narrowed asylum protections, and ended temporary deportation protections on an emergency basis.

Lynn connects these decisions to real‑world outcomes, saying they have facilitated executive actions affecting federal agencies, immigration enforcement, and other contested policies.

Lynn reproduces Trump's critique of three justices who opposed his mail‑in ballot restriction, but he rejects Trump's personal attacks on his own appointees. He calls Trump's language vulgar and excessive, yet continues to assign blame to the Roberts Court and several of Trump's nominees for rulings that Lynn believes have damaged democratic norms.

The editorial emphasizes institutional consequences rather than isolated disagreements. Lynn frames the 2024 immunity ruling, shadow‑docket practices, and immigration‑related emergency orders as indications the court will be remembered for harming democracy rather than defending it. He names specific policy areas (tariffs, birthright citizenship, mail‑in voting, agency protections, deportations) to ground this critique in actions rather than generalities.

Lynn urges Americans to recognize the threat he sees and to expect greater judicial prudence in future decisions. He stops short of prescribing particular political remedies, focusing instead on pressing the public to take the court's trajectory seriously.

This editorial is a pointed critique of recent Supreme Court behavior that aligns in part with President Trump's rhetorical attack but rejects his crude insults. Lynn's argument rests on a short list of named rulings and practices he views as undermining democratic checks and balances, with immigration and executive‑power matters highlighted as primary examples.