For most of our lifetimes, we’ve been inculcated to perceive the Supreme Court as above the dirty, conniving, unprincipled dynamics of day-to-day politics. In this fairy-tale version of America, politicians are the nasty ideological street brawlers, while the justices are high-minded, apolitical referees who attempt to apply empiricism and ideals to the messy fights of the other governmental branches.
And the justices are desperate to preserve this image of themselves as upstanding West Wing characters — indeed, Justice Amy Coney Barrett gave a speech a few years ago in which she declared, “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”
But we can thank Justice Neil Gorsuch for this week disabusing anyone of these fantasies. His decisions and statements over the last nineteen months remind us that the justices are just as calculated, hypocritical, and, yes, political as every other player in the political arena.
Yesterday Gorsuch was lauded for supporting the Supreme Court ruling to strike down Donald Trump’s tariffs — and specifically for his righteous defense of checks and balances and congressional prerogatives here in his concurrence:
Most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.
There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing…
Auteur: David Sirota
