Wait…WHICH Side Of The Ideological Divide Is A Threat To Democratic Institutions Again?

This is so outrageous that even after three cups of coffee I don’t know what to call it. Pathological hypocrisy? Playing with metaphorical matches in a kerosene factory? Prime Great Stupid? Help me out here.

In reaction to a relatively obscure 5-4 Supreme Court decision yesterday, numerous woke journalists and pundits went bonkers and argued that President Biden should just defy the ruling, you know, like Andrew Jackson did when he supposedly said, after the Court (correctly) ruled against his position in Worcester v. Georgia, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

More about that later.

The Supreme Court yesterday temporarily reinstated a Trump environmental policy that made it harder for states to block projects that could cause water pollution. The opinion, on the so-called “emergency docket” that allows the Court to rule on urgent matters without hearing an oral argument, was unsigned and without any written explanation (so much for Justice Barrett’s “Read the opinion” remarks) prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to join the court’s three left-leaning justices in criticizing the majority’s use of the emergency docket, or as critics call it, the shadow docket.” The particulars of the case don’t matter; what does matter is the Left’s nascent totalitarians in the news media calling for direct defiance.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times’ house Black Lives Matter collaborationist Jamelle Bouie approved, writing, “The court does not stand above or outside the constitutional system, and when it oversteps its boundaries, other constitutional actors have the right to push back either formally or informally.” (The Court “oversteps its boundaries” when it doesn’t march in lockstep with the Left’s desires.) The first call to arms (the phrase is only partially metaphorical in this instance) came from leftist political writer Will Wilkinson, who wrote,

“If SCOTUS rules on regulation without a hearing or argument, the administration should simply ignore it and state that, in the absence of a normal process judicial review, it sees the court’s judgments as advisory but not binding. The court famously has no enforcement authority. It’s authority is based in acceptance of the court’s legitimacy. But it can’t do whatever the hell it wants however it wants and expect deference. [The E]xecutive ought to brush off the court’s junta-like attempts to rule by edict.”

Note that this hysterical response was in reaction to a ruling that stated that the previous rule had to stay in place temporarily until the Biden administration came up with a new rule. The Horror.

More of the same followed, all from regular participants in the “Trump doesn’t respect democratic norms!” and “Republicans are a threat t democracy!” Big Lies. Politico contributing editor Joshua Zeitz wrote,

“It’s been my feeling for some time that Democrats should meet the erosion of democratic norms more forcefully. Obama should have said that Senate non/action on judicial nominations, including Garland, were implicit consent and that as of X date, they were judges/justices.”

Nice cherry-picking and straw-manning there. I thought the issue was defying the Supreme Court, not Mitch McConnell.

Bloomberg Law reporter Robert Iafolla applauded the revolutionaries, writing,

“54% of U.S. adults said they have a favorable opinion of SCOTUS as of January 2022, down from 70% in August 2020, according to Pew Research Center. The court’s growing legitimacy problem coincides with its expanded use of the shadow docket.”

What a liar! What proportion of the U.S. population can explain what the emergency docket is, other than the fact that the intentionally pejorative nickname “shadow docket” sounds sinister? .1%? Less? The Court’s falling approval level still puts it far ahead of either Congress or the Presidency, and far, far ahead of journalists.

As for these journalists evoking the impeachable conduct of Andrew Jackson, that might be the most hypocritical of all. Not only is “King Andy” Donald Trump’s favorite President, the case in which he defied the Supreme Court, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), involved a decision that might have changed history and prevented at least some of our the worst abuses against Native Americans. SCOTUS had asserted in the decision that Native American tribes had sovereignty and rights. Jackson, in openly defying it, paved the way for the Trail of Tears in 1838, forcibly evicting the Cherokee from Georgia.

That’s the kind of unconstitutional and dictatorial conduct we can expect from governments if the Supreme Court can be defied whenever politicians deem it convenient or popular. If you want a civil war, neutralizing SCOTUS is the way to get it.

And consider: these journalists want to take out the Supreme Court because of a clean water regulation. Wait until you see their reaction if the Court rules against killing viable fetuses.

2 thoughts on “Wait…WHICH Side Of The Ideological Divide Is A Threat To Democratic Institutions Again?

  1. When it comes to bullying the Court, the left has a long history.

    Jackson-FDR-the post-Bork confirmation process (Republicans seem lesser participants in this practice), Obama calling out the Court in the State of the Union, calls for impeachment, and I seem to recall some remarks by Schumer against Kavanaugh. And, didn’t Biden try to threaten an FDR about packing the Court?

    I do not put Merrick Garland’s treatment on the same level. That was more internal Senate politics and Garland was just a pawn. By the same token, some of the confirmation process is a Legislative-Executive power-struggle than it is an attack on the Court.

    As for Kagan’s opinion, I think she makes the right points (though I am not sure about the underlying issues). However, while we do not know what the other side was thinking, it is perfectly legitimate to use stays or injunctions to maintain the status quo; that would be what I would infer to be the thinking of the 5 Justices. For that reason, I think it is an unfair inference to believe they are judging the merits of the case.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.