Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:47 pm

So much for the rule of law

What’s wrong with this picture?

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.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010 9:01 pm

Oh, NOW you’re all worried about the commander-in-chief’s legality.

A Fox News military analyst, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, has come out as a Birther, having signed an affidavit in support of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who is resisting an order to deploy to Afghanistan because he doesn’t believe Obama is a natural-born citizen of the U.S. and therefore is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president and commander-in-chief.

McInerney’s affidavit says in part,

Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds his office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue.

That’s awfully precious, inasmuch as the commander-in-chief who actually launched that war did not lawfully hold the office at the time, but all the Very Serious People said we had to allow a judicial overthrow of the government or else the terrorists would win. I bet the countries with actual free presses are laughing their behinds off.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: