Precedents and Bulls--t: A Fantasia on a Liberal Theme

When John McCain promised in 2008 to appoint judges like John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the Smarter among us had a hearty laugh with our morning toast and coffee. After all, McCain's identity as a "maverick" (helpfully defined by George Will as "the media encomium reserved for Republicans who reject important Republican principals") led him over the course of his career to such monstrosities as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights, and, of course, McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance "reform" bill that did to the First Amendment what single-ply toilet paper does to our asses. The joke, we knew, was that McCain's model justices would be the first to strike down his signature achievements. McCain was so busy practicing his "strict constructionist" references in the mirror, he didn't stop to understand the phrase as anything but Conservative buzzwords. Too bad. He might have enjoyed the irony.

In any case, he can't have missed the blogosphere's (and the President's) response this past week to Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, a frenzy of liberal teeth-gnashing unheard since the darkest hours of the Bush administration. Writing in the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse wondered "what the Roberts majority’s next target will be . . . now that it has experienced the joy of overturning." (Her guess: the Civil Rights Act.) Back in Washington at the Post, E. J. Dionne suggested that "the Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government." Even the President (or was that his chauffeur--we're never sure) joined in the hand-wringing with his State of the Union claim that the ruling had "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." (Note: He lies.) Like all disingenuous political spectacles, this one had its volume turned to "11." A week later and we're still covering our ears.

Perhaps the deepest irony here is that there is a legitimate argument to be made that the presence of television and direct-mail advertising has perverted beyond repair the political process in this country. Show us anyone who thinks that campaigns are too short, their budgets too small. Sadly, the liberal response to the recent ruling has focused not on that merited (though hopeless) argument but on two different points:

1) Alito shouldn't have made that face;

2) The Court shouldn't have overturned precedent.

Yes, that's right. The same political Left that rightly praises Brown vs. Board of Education (thousands of years of precedent overturned if we're just talking about culturally institutionalized racism) can't stop bitching now about the will of the people, judicial restraint, and stare decisis.

But here's our question. Is anyone even listening to them anymore?