The proper role of judges has been on many a mind in recent years. In summer 2020, New York Times resident race scold and professional hysteric Jamelle Bouie penned “Down With Judicial Supremacy!,” a column urging Democrats to challenge “the idea that the courts, and the courts alone, determine constitutional meaning.” In March, the Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson wrote a nearly identical case, lamenting “the fallacious notion that the federal judiciary has the exclusive power of constitutional interpretation.” Both men are opportunists, of course, and dislike mainly the “supremacy” of rulings with which they disagree — note: I’m no different, which is the point. Yet even staunch institutionalists are getting in on the game. In a much-discussed aside in last month’s Trump v. CASA decision, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett zinged fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for “embracing an imperial Judiciary.”