The New York Times editorial board was on to something Monday when it penned a lengthy piece worrying that the Supreme Court may come to be dominated entirely by partisan operatives.
However, rather than arrive at the conclusion that the Supreme Court ought to be safeguarded against political interests so that it can remain an impartial legal body, the Times hit on the idea of pleading with Justice Anthony Kennedy to hold on to his seat indefinitely.
It’s as if the Times is totally uninterested in correcting the root problem of justices behaving as (and being treated as) all-powerful, unelected, lifetime politicians. Having cheered so many decisions that made the justices into just that, the Times’ editors seem to have accepted that reality, and are now diving headfirst into lobbying to stock the court with the right political (rather than legal) minds.
“Please don’t go,” the board pleaded in an editorial titled “Please stay, Justice Kennedy. America needs you.”
This headline is actually good in that it gives the reader a clear idea of the sort of sniveling, pathetic lip service that follows.
“Sitting between the four liberal justices and the four conservatives, you are the most powerful member of the most powerful court in the country, as you have been for at least a decade. Your vote, more than that of any other justice, has delivered landmark legal victories for Americans of all political stripes, from gays and lesbians seeking equal rights to African-American college students seeking a better education to deep-pocketed corporations seeking to spend more money influencing politics,” they argued.
There’s even a part where the board (still addressing Kennedy) says it knows what his “departure right now would mean for the court, and for the nation. It would not be good.”
Please, fellas, dial it down a notch.
Much of the editorial is written in a concern-trolling voice, as the article’s authors vacillate back-and-forth between warning the octogenarian justice that his retirement would do serious harm to his legacy and “the Supreme Court itself,” as if the man could fix the problem by simply choosing to live forever.
“[D]id you spend a lifetime honoring and upholding the Constitution and the values of civility and decency in American public life only to have your replacement chosen by Donald Trump?” they ask.
There’s quite a bit to pick apart in the Times’ 1,000-word-plus exercise in handwringing, but the really annoying stuff is at the end, where the board does that thing that viciously anti-conservative people do when they claim that they used to like and respect Republicans — but not anymore!
“This is where you come in, Justice Kennedy,” they write. “You’re a conservative from a time when conservatism was a more or less coherent political philosophy, not a tribal identity. You’re a believer in free markets and individual liberty, and also in human rights and equal justice. A defender of the rule of law, of civility and decorum — those time-honored values now desecrated daily by the current inhabitant of the Oval Office.”
Ah, yes. Let’s not forget the good old days, back when the Times treated Republicans with fairness and dignity. After all, it was just policy debates back then! Yes, the Times has never talked about Republicans like they feel compelled now to talk about President Trump.
Dark times indeed.
