No Celebration of Constitutional Principles

WASHINGTON -- It was a coincidence, but a jarring one, that the second Republican presidential debate took place the day before Constitution Day. The GOP candidates' remarks betrayed the need for a remedial course -- or maybe any course at all -- in constitutional law, judicial independence and the rule of law.

That the presidential candidates, like other conservatives, are frustrated with the Supreme Court is hardly surprising. Last term, the court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage (thanks to one Republican nominee, Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan) and turned back a deadly challenge to Obamacare (thanks to Kennedy and, for a second time on the health care law, Chief Justice John Roberts, named by George W. Bush).

What was notable, and unsettling, was the vehemence of some candidates' resistance to the court's decrees; the fury unleashed on Roberts; and their fundamental cluelessness about constitutional guarantees. This crowd didn't engage in the usual, polite ritual of disclaiming litmus tests -- it vowed to impose them, at long last.

"If the court can just make a decision and we just all surrender to it, we have what Jefferson said was judicial tyranny," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said of the court's same-sex marriage ruling.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum made a similarly ill-informed point in the earlier, junior varsity debate. "Judicial supremacy is not in the Constitution, and we need a president and a Congress to stand up to a court when it exceeds its constitutional authority," he said.

Um, hello, Marbury v. Madison anyone?

Turns out having gone to a fancy law school and clerked for the Supreme Court offers no protection against such bombast. "We have an out-of-control court, and I give you my word, if I'm elected president, every single Supreme Court justice will faithfully follow the law and will not act like philosopher kings imposing their liberal policies on millions of Americans," thundered Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Seriously, President Cruz, how are you going to enforce that one? Drones?

Cruz, so sputteringly angry over Roberts that he incorrectly blamed the chief justice for the same-sex marriage ruling, said it was "a mistake" to have supported his confirmation.

Even more interesting, Jeb Bush, while asserting that Roberts "has made some really good decisions," said the chief justice had been too much of a stealth nominee, with an insufficient track record when nominated. That's not accurate about Roberts -- former Justice David Souter is another story -- but it's instructive about how Republicans intend to approach future Supreme Court nominations.

"Going forward, what we need to do is to have someone that has a long-standing set of rulings that consistently makes it clear that he is focused exclusively on upholding the Constitution," Bush said. "You can't do it the politically expedient way anymore."

...continued

swipe to next page