forgottenliberty.com

Liberal Logic on the Supreme Court

I read a column today by progressive columnist E.J. Dionne.  In his column, Dionne describes why the recent Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case was an example of legislating from the bench.  He also defends Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address.  His column is a perfect example of (oxymoron alert!) liberal logic.  For instance, he claims 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.

Two things strike me as illogical in this statement.  The first is the issue of precedent.  Progressives love precedent when it supports something they approve of.  They feel if they can get a court ruling in their favor, they have locked in their policies for generations.  The Supreme Court usually defers to precedent, but it is not bound to do so.  The only thing the Court is bound by is the Constitution.  If the Court believes a previous court made a wrong decision, they can choose to correct it.  This has happened many times in our history (usually in favor of Progressive policies), and to act like it never happens, is revisionist history.

The second issue in this statement that defies logic is that the Court ignored “the wishes of the elected branches of government”.  This is exactly what the Court is supposed to do!  The Court provides an important check and balance to the elected branches of government.  They are not supposed to follow the wishes of Congress, the President, or even the American people.  They are free to make decisions on the Constitution and the law without having to worry about elections and poll numbers.  This is an important distinction of the judicial branch of our government.  Is the President bound by the wishes of the Court?  Is Congress bound by the wishes of the President?  Of course not.  If the Court is supposed to obey the wishes of the elected branches, what is the point of having a Supreme Court?

Another portion of Mr. Dionne’s column shows how the liberal mind is incapable of deciphering the logical fallacies in their own arguments.  Dionne claims,

There is ample precedent for Obama’s firm but respectful rebuke of the court. I know of no one on the right who protested when President Ronald Reagan, in a 1983 article in the Human Life Review, took on the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision of 10 years earlier.

“Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution,” Reagan wrote. “No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. . . . Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a ‘right’ so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born.”

First of all, I know of no conservative who thinks Obama did not have the right to criticize the Court’s ruling.  This was not the issue.  The issue was that Obama criticized the Court during the biggest speech of the year with 6 of the justices sitting in front of him unable to defend themselves and their decision.  It was low class and unprecedented to do it in this manner.  Dionne suggests that there is no difference between Obama’s criticism of the Court and Reagan’s criticism of Roe vs. Wade.  This is a logical fallacy.  Does he not see the difference between writing an article in a magazine, as Reagan did, and criticizing the justices to their face during a joint session of Congress?  It’s not the fact that Obama disagreed with the court.  It’s the way in which Obama choose to display his disagreement that many people see as wrong.  If Obama had criticized the Court in a manner similar to Reagan, there would not be any controversy.  No other President has criticized the justices of the Supreme Court to their faces during the State of the Union address.

There is also a huge difference in why Obama disagrees with the recent Court ruling and why Reagan disagreed with Roe vs. Wade.  Obama criticized the Court for overturning precedent and giving corporations more influence over our elections.  Obama did not mention the Constitution in his rebuke of the Supreme Court.  Why is that?  In the case Obama is upset about, the Court was ruling on the Constitutionality of restricting corporate speech before an election.  If the decision was wrong, why didn’t Obama (who was a Constitutional law professor) use the Constitution to support his argument?  The reason he didn’t is because the Court’s decision did not violate the Constitution.  Rather, it upheld the Constitution.

Justice Thomas gave a great argument in support of the Court’s decision and why it was Constitutionally sound.  He said,

If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association. But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?”

Obviously, first amendment rights do not stop just because a group of people decided to incorporate.  If liberals do not believe the first amendment applies to corporations, does that mean the 4th amendment does not apply to them either?  Justice Thomas went on to say “…the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”  Exactly!

Contrast Obama’s criticism with that of Reagan’s in the example that Dionne gave.  Obama focused on precedent and laws passed by the legislature.  Reagan based his argument on the Constitution.  Reagan was right.  Nowhere does the Constitution even hint at the right to an abortion.  Obama’s argument falls apart when we consider that “the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

How can Dionne believe that Obama did nothing different than Reagan?  Why do liberals not see the faulty logic behind so many of their opinions?  Are they incapable of rationally examining their own ideas and arguments?

Related posts:

1. President Obama Insults Supreme Court, Alito Plays the Part of Joe Wilson
2. Obama Wants to Take on the Supreme Court
3. Obama’s Afghanistan Speech, Where was the V word?
4. Ronald Reagan, Thoughts on America and Socialized Medicine

Click here to subscribe to Forgotten Liberty