The institutional independence of the Roberts-led court struck notes of stability and caution against a landscape of hyper-partisanship, and tempered conservative notions that President Trump’s nominations had created a fortress on the court.
“The rule of law remains largely intact,” said attorney and legal analyst Brad Moss. “And that is due in no small part to the institutional caution that exemplifies the Roberts court.”
The conservative-majority court delivered wins and losses to both liberals and conservatives alike, though largely without issuing maximalist rulings in either direction. Court watchers attributed this to Roberts’s stewardship.
Were these folks worried about the "rule of law" and "institutional caution" when in the past the court has lurched leftward denying all legal and historical precedent? Of course not. These are just catch words the left is using as they heave a sigh of relief the court has pussy-footed around on so many issues. No "maximalist rulings" means the court limited itself to very narrow rulings, and punted whenever they had the chance. That is what they consider to be "stewardship." A more appropriate word would be cowardice.
No comments:
Post a Comment