By David French
Monday, March 04, 2019
There’s a wooing going on. John Roberts, the chief
justice of the Supreme Court, has been defined as the new “swing vote,” and
he’s now the most powerful jurist in the land. And that means the legal Left is
beckoning him. How? By putting him at war with himself — setting up a conflict
between Roberts the “institutionalist” and Roberts the “originalist;” between
Roberts the jurist and guardian of the legacy of the Court and Roberts the
“ideologue.”
It works something like this — let’s suppose a key
abortion case comes before the court, or the court considers an important
conflict between the Trump administration and the special counsel’s office.
According to this construct, it’s Roberts the ideologue who would vote to
restrict abortion rights. It’s Roberts the conservative who would back the
Trump administration. But a chief justice who cared about the institution of
the Supreme Court? Well, he guards Roe.
He checks Trump.
I can think of few better examples of the temptation of
John Roberts than an extended essay by Michael O’Donnell in The Atlantic centered around Joan
Biskupic’s new book about the chief justice. Framing the alleged conflict
between Roberts’s judicial philosophy and his responsibilities as chief,
O’Donnell asks, “What will Roberts do if the clerk calls some form of the case Mueller v. Trump, raising a grave matter
of first principles, such as presidential indictment and self-pardon?”
The proper answer to that question is obvious — he should
decide the case on the basis of the text and original public meaning of the
Constitution and any other relevant statutes. But O’Donnell has a different
response. “He portrays himself as an institutionalist, but we do not yet know
to what extent this is true. He must necessarily prove himself on a case-by-case basis, which injects a note of
drama into his movements.” (Emphasis added.)
Prove himself to whom? The progressive legal
establishment, of course.
There was a similar dynamic in play during a recent
episode of the New York Times’s
excellent podcast, The Daily.
Analyzing Roberts’s recent decision to side with the liberal justices and
temporarily block enforcement of a Louisiana abortion restriction, the host,
Michael Barbaro, and Times legal
correspondent Adam Liptak described Roberts’s decision once again in
institutionalist terms. He allegedly set aside his ideology to do what was
presumed to be best for the court.
But wait — why is “institutionalism” so often synonymous
with upholding beloved progressive precedent or upholding beloved progressive
statutes? Would there be similar hand-wringing if, say, a more progressive
court reversed Supreme Court precedents like Heller, Citizens United,
or Hobby Lobby? I suspect not.
In reality, there is no conflict between originalism and
institutionalism. In fact, originalism will do more over the long run to
sustain and enhance the institutional legitimacy of the high court than any
short-term political calculation. The true threat to the Supreme Court’s
legitimacy isn’t any given decision or opinion. No, the true threat to the
institution is its outsized role in American public life. Just as America
suffers because Congress has ceded much of its authority to the executive, our
political culture is dysfunctional in part because the Court has strayed too
far from its constitutional bounds. Its unelected, life-term justices have
entirely too much power over American lives.
There is no better example of this phenomenon than the Roe precedent itself. Decades ago, a
court completely unmoored from the text of the Constitution yanked one of the
most important and contentious public debates of modern times almost entirely
out of the democratic process. And yet the wise men and women of the legal Left
will now claim that the very legitimacy of the court depends on protecting a
fundamentally illegitimate precedent.
And what would happen if Roe is overturned? The court’s role in American life would
diminish. More democracy would happen, from coast to coast, as American states
enacted laws that reflected their populations’ values. Presidential elections
would be less fraught, as the stakes of American elections would grow higher at
the state and local level — exactly where the founders intended Americans to
focus their political efforts.
That’s one issue. Let’s turn to a possible showdown with
the Trump administration. We cannot define legitimacy or institutionalism
merely as “beating Trump.” One cannot believe that the court will remain
“legitimate,” especially in the eyes of a vast number of citizens, if the chief
justice is seen to depart from the language of the relevant law in an effort to
enhance the ephemeral “prestige” of the Court — as defined mainly by scholars
and pundits on the opposite side of the political divide.
Given the rather obvious flaws in the idea that any class
of commentators can define the institutional interests of the Court better than
a justice reading and applying the law in good faith, why are thoughtful
progressive commentators spilling ink on the idea that Roberts can be won over?
Perhaps because they perceive there is precedent — the Obamacare case.
Biskupic’s book seems to confirm what many conservatives
have long suspected, that Roberts “started in a different place.” He was going
to strike down the individual mandate, but he was “torn between his heart and
his head.” O’Donnell claims that if Roberts had voted against the mandate, he
would have “further eroded the Court’s claim to transcend politics after the
image-shattering decisions in Bush v.
Gore (2000) and Citizens United
(2010).” There is no mention of the “image-shattering decisions” in Griswold (“penumbras and emanations”) or
Roe or, more recently, Obergefell.
At the most basic level, originalism is institutionalism. Originalism places the institution of the
Supreme Court (and Article III courts more broadly) in its proper
constitutional place. It subordinates the Court by elevating the text of the
Constitution and the text of the laws the Court interprets. It allows citizens
to impact government not through the fraught, decades-long process of replacing
life-term judges, but by the more immediate and democratic process of changing
statutes.
No one doubts that moving the Court back to the text will
be politically painful. Overturning Roe
would generate an enormous public response, but does anyone want to argue that
the current post-Roe political
culture is just fine? Does anyone want to argue that the court’s previous
transparent political calculations have lowered the temperature of public
debate?
John Roberts is a good man who understands the American
Constitution. I have far less faith in his ability to gauge the medium-term —
much less long-term — political and cultural effects of his decisions on the
reputation of the court. Yet the progressive establishment calls on him to
forsake the former for the latter. Remember your institution, they cry.
America needs a court in its proper place. Roberts should
reject the great temptation and remember a fundamental truth — the chief’s
institution needs the chief’s originalism. No other course of action will calm
debate. No other course of action will preserve the legitimacy of the court.
The court’s political calculations are a cause of, not the solution to,
America’s great political divide.
No comments:
Post a Comment