The Supreme Court has been taking a beating lately–in the press at least.
In response to suspicions that the Court will strike down Obamacare, Maureen Dowd, columnist for The New York Times, called the justices “hacks dressed up in black robes.” Economist Paul Krugman accused the justices of ignorance and an inability to “stand above politics.” President Obama even waded into the fray by making some surprisingly inaccurate remarks about judicial review that were so widely criticized, the Administration was forced to back-peddle on his assertions a day later.
Ironically, the pundits seem to spare the “liberal” wing of the Supreme Court from their scorn. In their view, questions in oral arguments which lend support to the administration’s legal case were the result of reasoned legal philosophy, while similarly framed questions skeptical of the administration’s arguments were no more than mindless partisan malice.
Likewise the liberal punditry was largely supportive of the Court when they were busy debating the Bush administration’s and anti-terrorism measures.
Fortunately, Supreme Court justices don’t really care what Krugman & Co. think about them or their opinions.
What we are seeing is a frantic, if not desperate, response to the unwelcome news that the legal case against Obamacare might actually become Supreme Court precedent. When the left realized it was losing the argument, the best it could do is call it’s opponents insincere, dishonest or worse.
When Presidents nominate judges, they aren’t nominating partisan cheerleaders; they are nominating a judicial philosophy. The fact that a judicial theory such as originalism (interpreting the Constitution based upon the founders’ original intent) tends to favor Republican policy positions should be considered a happy coincidence rather than evidence of judicial malpractice.
The truth is, after decades of liberal domination in the Federal Judiciary, the left is horrified by the rapid rise of the conservative legal movement. The Federalist Society, the standard-bearer for conservative judicial philosophy, is among the most active group in law schools and bar organizations across the country.
The pre-emptive attack on the Supreme Court over Obamacare is simply part of a larger attempt to discredit the conservative legal movement. If conservatives win the health reform case, support for the decision will become a litmus test in every judicial nomination hearing for decades to come.
Americans broadly oppose the individual mandate, so if being a “conservative” judge means opposing the mandate on constitutional grounds and setting a precedent, that’s bad news for liberals who hope to confirm like-minded judges in the future.
