Originally published at: For Most of Its History, the Supreme Court Didn’t Pretend to Be Apolitical - TPM – Talking Points Memo
Today’s Supreme Court justices insist that they are not “politicians in robes” and merely act as umpires calling “balls and strikes.” But for the first 100 years of the nation, members of the Court were actively and openly involved in partisan politics. Justices penned newspaper articles and pamphlets, wrote or consulted on congressional legislation, campaigned…
1 Like
Any 6-3 decision with the usual suspects is politics not law anyway.
So, we’re supposed to view today’s SC as continuing a grand American tradition? I realize there are problems with the SC supremacy view, but I think that outlook is an improvement over the mud wrestling of the 19th century.
I think you should revisit the first sentence, which together with the second and the sixth establishes the basic contrast between then and now.
Wow…so, a “supreme court originalist.” The corrupt “conservative” supermajority must love your work. Just because earlier justices played politics doesn’t make it “right.”
Congress didn’t simply ignore Dred Scott, they passed the reconstruction amendments to effectively overturn it. And future decisions confirmed. Article III doesn’t mention politicking (I don’t believe political parties are addressed at all in the Constitution), but it does give the Judiciary that elusive balls and strikes responsibility. That courts, and this court in particular, have twisted that doesn’t excuse their blatantly political and corrupt activities. At least not for this non-lawyer
I think you may have missed the point here. The current SCOTUS are two-thirds right-wing ideologues masquerading as neutral arbiters, the kind who said at their confirmation hearings that they’d respect precedent and then promptly threw a lot of precedent out. If the conservative justices had said what they were actually going to do, there’s a chance they wouldn’t have been confirmed; but if they were at least the voters would have a clear sense of what we were going to get. That’s what would have happened in the nineteenth century. This is not an originalist argument at all–it’s a call to stop pretending in a way that conceals anti-democratic (to say the least) right-wing (undeniably) overreach by this Court.
2 Likes
I take your point, but I read this as being apologetic rather than as a call for honesty. Also, I meant “originalist” as ironic…”Hey, look they were always political so it’s ok that they are political now.”
But again, I see your perspective. We’ll never get honesty from nominees who “secretly” want to destroy liberality. I mean it’s not so secret, but won’t be said out loud. The senate needs to do a better job of voting on nominees based on with whom they associate.
I’m glad we’re seeing each others’ points. On the question of apologetics, I think this piece by the same author will offer some clarification: Supreme Court “packing” isn’t radical. It has deep roots in American legal tradition.
Thank You!