I'm not one who bemoans the coming of a conservative majority or a liberal one. Appointments in the final analysis are always political and so a given administration is entitled to put its stamp on the court, whether I happen to personally prefer it or not. That's the system we've got in the United States.
Roosevelt toyed and then tried packing the court but the Senate blocked it. So that idea isn't onside but there is some worry about how the Roberts court would handle legal challenges which eventually made their way to the high court.
My criticism of Roberts is one of degree. In my view, he may have gone beyond the previous goalposts for a chief justice enumerated by Burger and even Rehnquist. A chief justice's job is one of quiet dignified argument and persuasion. There is some evidence that in Dobbs that Roberts crossed a line and went beyond that. There are allegations of bullying and perhaps of partial advocacy unworthy of a chief justice. In my view, whether those allegations are founded or not, damage has indeed been done to Roberts' reputation. How would a Roberts court handle a contentious election? One can only speculate but my bet is that Roberts would return to the traditional role of the chief as a consensus builder. With quite literally the fate of the Republic at stake, to do otherwise would be irresponsible, counterproductive and politically dangerous.
All of this to say that I expect a decisive political end result so this post is more of a theoretical academic exercise than anything else. However, it is worth pondering.
No comments:
Post a Comment