[T]o argue that the Roberts court is hurtling down the wrong path substantively is to make a judgment call that invites pushback and debate. I understand that. This is an opinion column, and here is my opinion: the court’s majority is driving it into dangerous territory. The problem is not only that the court is too often divided but that it’s too often simply wrong: wrong in the battles it picks, wrong in setting an agenda that mimics a Republican Party platform, wrong in refusing to give the political system breathing room to make fundamental choices of self-governance.

I don’t relish connecting these dots; I have sometimes felt like the last person standing who still insisted, even after living through Bush v. Gore, that law and not politics is what drives the Supreme Court. In the newsroom of The Times, I lobbied periodically against the routine journalistic practice of identifying judges by the president who appointed them.

But I’m finding it impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Republican-appointed majority is committed to harnessing the Supreme Court to an ideological agenda. The evidence is everywhere: from the way the court invited and then accepted a fundamental challenge to public employee labor unions in Harris v. Quinn, a case argued in January and due for decision any day; to its brick-by-brick deregulation of campaign finance; to its obsession with race and with drawing the final curtain on the civil rights revolution.

I wrote “ideological” rather than “partisan” agenda because there’s something deeper going on than mere partisanship. Congress, after all, reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses, in a bill signed into law by President George W. Bush. The Bush administration urged the court to uphold the law in one of the last briefs filed before the president left office. It was a small cadre of right-wing activists that pressed the opposing view on the court. Success took a while: The court lost its nerve on that initial round in 2009, but conspicuously kept the door open for a renewed challenge. The result was last term’s Shelby County v. Holder, the 5-to-4 decision that cut the heart out of the Voting Rights Act – which had been the plan all along.

Greenhouse writes that the court has been "wrong in refusing to give the political system breathing room to make fundamental choices of self-governance." That's exactly what Roe, and many other liberal rulings, have also refused to do.

For conservatives, then, the critique that Greenhouse presents as a revelation is old hat. We've said for a long time that the court decides policy questions it has no business settling, that it therefore has an outsized role in American life, and that its self-aggrandizement can distort our politics.

It would be nice if Greenhouse were next to acknowledge that conservatives have had a point about excessive judicial power all these years. But these are dangers that people can, perhaps, see only when they lose in court.

dajafi wrote:I think her point is more about the Roberts faction actively seeking cases on which to create new law that aligns not only to right-wing views, but priorities (and theirs alone--...

Luzinski's Gut wrote:My good friend Phil Carter, Director of Veteran Affairs at CNAS, with his suggestions on how to fix the VA.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... he_va.html

More broadly, the growing VA scandal cast doubt on the ability of the government to deliver health care, a major Obama administration priority. If the White House could not deliver on this promise to veterans, a key constituency for whom the president and vice president have frequently described health care as part of a “sacred trust,” then how could the administration be trusted to provide care for all Americans?

dajafi wrote:I think her point is more about the Roberts faction actively seeking cases on which to create new law that aligns not only to right-wing views, but priorities (and theirs alone--I thought the point that the Bush administration, which was partisan enough to fuck with firing US Attorneys, went out of its way to back the Civil Rights Act, was pretty telling).

Maybe the Warren Court sought out all their landmark decisions. (I doubt the Burger Court did with Roe.) But I'm not sure the default "you guys do it too" argument plays here.

jerseyhoya wrote:In a write up on the DOMA decision from last year, she noted Kennedy has a 'concern for human dignity' that separates him from the other conservatives on the court. DOMA was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both houses, in a bill signed into law by President William J. Clinton. She doesn't have a problem with these battles being picked or the rulings that might mimic the Democratic platform. She doesn't have a problem with the court taking up controversial issues and taking away the breathing space necessary to make the fundamental choices of self government in principle. Her problem is when the court does these things on an issue where she disagrees with the court's ruling. It's not a compelling argument. It's just another spin on the old adage that the definition of an activist ruling is one you disagree with.

Legislation that would allow schools to display the national motto "In God We Trust" and the Bill of Rights passed the state House on Monday by a 172-24 vote.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Rick Saccone, R-Allegheny, doesn't carry any mandate for schools. But Saccone said it informs schools that they would have the state's permission to post these patriotic displays.

In proposing the legislation, Saccone pointed out Congress 14 years ago encouraged the national motto that appears on U.S. currency be displayed in public buildings. He said posting it in schools could help familiarize student with it and its meaning.

The bill now goes to the state Senate for consideration.

During a brief debate prior to the House's passage of the bill, Rep. Michael O'Brien, D-Philadelphia, who last month sponsored the amendment to add the provision for schools to post the Bill of Rights as well, called the bill "nothing but an exercise in silliness."

Rep. Mike Sturla, D-Lancaster, offered an anecdote about his first-grade teacher referring to him as a pagan because he was a Catholic who prayed to statues.

"That's the concern with mixing religion in the schoolhouse," Sturla said. "I offer that cautionary story. "

Despite the optional nature of the legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania has warned schools could be opening themselves up to a lawsuit by posting the religious-based motto in a school where students are a captive audience.