Later this month, the Supreme Court will rule on President Obama’s health care plan. One side or the other in this politically charged case is bound to be frustrated. But the air of crisis awaiting the court’s decision, the expectation that it will spark a furor, owes less to the case than to an erosion of faith in the court.
This loss of confidence in the institution best-positioned to preserve unity in times of flux is a tragedy with many chapters. It started with the intense politicization of the nominating process, emblemized by the 1987 Robert Bork battle. It fed on the rancor of those who sought to structure the court around one litmus-test issue: abortion.
Comments
This behavior is fundamentally divergent to what their mission is. Such impartial behavior for what is ostensibly a bastion of impartiality is a disturbing and shocking breach of the public's trust and egregiously detrimental to the legal foundation of the country and what the court should stand for.
It was good for the Globe to present this in a way that shows that both sides are political, and it does erode the court's image. The challenge is that political philosophy will always be an undergirding for all decisions. This is why the president who appoints the justices has so much power. But justices have an obligation to demonstrate that they bring an open mind to each case before them. Aligning themselves with political groups does not serve this purpose.
Hmm. No metion of Kagan and/or the wise latina........
Is this editorial part of the liberal campaign to strong arm the Supreme Court into upholding Obamacare?
Balderdash! The editors should read a new history of the New Deal Court called Scorpions. It's author shows the long-standing political nature of the Supreme Court. It isn't an apolitical body. Thurgood Marshall was a great lawyer, but you are going to call him politically neutral? Oh the sophistry.
I understand that the Justices have independent political minds with strong views on issues right and left. What really bothers me however is that we now have three Supreme Court Justices: Alito, Scalia, and Thomas who are HEADLINING POLITICAL FUNDRAISING events for organizations and corporations that BENEFIT DIRECTLY from the decisions that the court makes. (Citizens United et al.) Scalia and Thomas have headlined at political strategy events hosted by the Koch brothers. Now Alito headlines a FUNDRAISING event hosted by the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by giant corporations like Exxon and Cigna. Are you kidding me? For any lower Federal Court judge these would be impeachable offences. The Supreme court is of course, exempt. Remember when Scalia went duck hunting with Cheney right before he ruled on the case that could have sent Cheney to jail? Yup. Could these guys be any more corrupt? Thomas withheld information about his wife's association with Tea Party groups in violation of Federal law. When caught he filed. Was able to get the office to stamp his paperwork on a Saturday to avoid the Sunday talk-shows. The office is closed on Saturdays. They said the stamp machine must have been broken. C'mon.
Maybe someone should take this to Change.org to see if the citizenry feel a softer, more neutral stance for the Court will be the norm, or if laissez-faire is appropriate. Thank you for a provocative editorial.
This comment has been removed.
The fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says we should look to international law to help makes decisions is looney left at its best! Folks, the decision on Obamacare has already been made and voted on. The deciion will be given next month. Unless Obama leaks like military secrets. But that isn't political. Like When Deval stacked the MAss Supreme court with judges who mke sure gay marriage was legalized so we couldn't vote on it!!! Nothing political here. The author mentions mostly conservatives, never the liberals on the court and what they do? Why so much on one side if the purpose was to show it goes both ways? We know the answer to that!!!
This comment has been removed.
The author clearly mentions both sides. The Goodridge marriage case was decided years before Patrick was Governor -- he had no role in it. Please get your facts in order before you go on a rant.
Shockingly, I have given your post a "Like". I agree with you.
Their absence from the piece is significant in what way? Perhaps they did not engage in blatantly partisan behavior after being named to the high court. Roberts was mentioned as having displayed a more judicious code of behavior than Justices Scalia and Thomas.
Actually, I thought that it was a reasonably balanced commentary on the erosion of confidence in the high court because of unseemly behaviors.
Not helpful.
There is a difference between what is political and what is unethical. What the judges are doing now is clearly not ethical. The point of the article is that the judges themselves should self-regulate. The fact they are not, goes to show that they are not really fit for their duties.
I think this editorial is spot on. As luck would have it, the editorial nicely dovetails with a "water cooler" conversation I had with a colleague just yesterday.
POSTSCRIPT: Although I think the justices have primary responsibility to avoid partisan activity, I also think partisan organizations which invite them to events (e.g., fundraisers) show poor judgment themselves.