For years, conservatives have argued that the Supreme Court should not decide cases based on ideology or personal preference, but upon the text of the Constitution, and upon established precedent under that charter. Justices should not legislate from the bench.
While judicial lawmaking is exactly what Justices Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia accuse Roberts of doing, he asserts precisely the opposite. He refrains from overturning a law that, clearly, he considers ill-advised, badly crafted, and ultimately doomed.
His reckless restraint, as some might view it, is anchored in the doctrine of separation of powers. He also telegraphs to his readers that the way to deal with this offensive law is near at hand, in November.
While I would prefer an outcome that supports my principles, and advances the cause of my party, my primary allegiance must be to the process established under the “supreme law of the land.”
The easier solution to a vexing problem is to have someone powerful remove it. The hard way calls for devotion, on your part, to upholding our values — using our constitutional prerogative to replace the incompetent, the corrupt, and the compromised.
If we should fail to do so this November, our whining about Roberts’ betrayal will do nothing to stop the onslaught of ObamaCare. And in the near future, when a law comes along that we wish to see upheld, we’ll be grateful for the precedent set by Roberts’ reasonable restraint.
Also read Christian Adams: “Today, the Court flinched from that obligation, in part because of decades of conservatives repeating the empty and now obsolete admonition against ‘legislating from the bench.’”