The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.
Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.
So despite near-unanimous agreement on what the nation’s highest court should do given the relevant facts, law and judicial precedents, fewer than half believe that this court will actually do what it should. Put another way, all that stuff about judicial restraint and stare decisis and “No judicial activism!” that we’ve been hearing from conservatives ever since Brown v. Board of Education is officially crap. Just for the record.
Of course, we’ve seen this coming since Bush v. Gore, when the conservative majority decided that allowing all legally cast ballots to be counted constituted an irreparable harm to George W. Bush. Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissent remains relevant:
It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.