Increasingly Shrill Liberal Journalists Attack 'Legitimacy' of Supreme Court Ahead of ObamaCare Ruling
As the ObamaCare decision looms large on the horizon, the Left is doing their best to defame the Supreme Court in anticipation of a defeat of the president's signature legislative accomplishment.
In the past two days, liberal journalists Michael Tomasky and James Fallows have published histrionic tirades at their respective publications, the Daily Beast/Newsweek and The Atlantic.
Fallows cries that the “Roberts majority” is ruining the court’s legitimacy by somehow violating unwritten "norms" of its behavior:
Norms have given the Supreme Court its unquestioned legitimacy. The Roberts majority is barreling ahead without regard for the norms, and it is taking the court’s legitimacy with it.
Tomasky published an article in which he quoted the following from his pal Fallows as “factually true.”
First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
Then the beneficiary of that decision appoint the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
Yes, you read correctly. Liberal journalists are descending into loopy conspiracy theories about the Court now.
Of course, in their rush to paint the Supreme Court as a right-wing cabal controlled by shadowy millionaires, both Tomasky and Fallows do absolutely nothing to actually address the salient constitutional issues at play in the ObamaCare case, HHS v. Florida.
It should be a major embarrassment to Newsweek and The Atlantic that instead of attempting thoughtful liberal cases for upholding the ObamaCare mandate, it's plunged into the abyss with overheated, conspiratorial rhetoric like Tomasky's and Fallows's.