[卡尔]为什么最高法院是最后一个正常运作的政府部门

最高法院以 9 比 0 的投票结果裁定，各州不得利用第 14 条修正案第 3 条将前总统唐纳德·特朗普因 2021 年 1 月 6 日所谓的“叛乱”行为而从州选票中剔除。

对于许多怀疑的左翼人士来说，得知州官员无权简单地将领先的总统候选人从选票中剔除，这让他们感到非常惊讶。

一旦你确信特朗普领导了一场几乎推翻民主的希特勒政变，每一个旨在阻止他的疯狂法律理论听起来不仅在道德上合理，而且在法律上也是合理的。

就在上周，进步派人士对最高法院没有加快特朗普的豁免权主张以配合拜登总统的竞选日程感到愤怒。

然而，更深层次的问题是，左派——但实际上，任何痴迷于特朗普的人——似乎无法理解法律或原则中立的概念。

例如，美联社是这样描述法院判决的：“最高法院恢复特朗普的投票权，拒绝国家试图追究他对 2021 年国会大厦袭击事件负责的企图。”

探索更多

最高法院以 9 比 0 对特朗普的裁决表明民主不分党派

重新定义“圣战”是左派扭曲现实的阴险尝试的一部分

芝加哥市长的史诗般的熄火是对埃里克·亚当斯和纽约的警告

这绝对不是所发生的事情：最高法院就宪法问题做出了裁决。

科罗拉多州是否认为让特朗普承担责任——以及他参与“叛乱”的论点，可以说，是非常值得商榷的——则是另一回事了。

无论如何，此案再次提醒人们，最高法院可能是唯一运作的政府机构。

当然，我所说的“发挥作用”并不是指法院“推动国家前进”、“维护民主”、“保证我们的安全”或任何其他左派坚持认为构成良好治理的废话。

我的意思是，法院多数派认真对待其宪法规定的授权。

不，斯科特斯并没有把每一个案例都说对。

有时，在首席大法官的领导下，它是令人困惑的所罗门式的。

但这在正常范围内是错误的。

另一方面，国会已将战争、支出和治理的职责移交给行政部门。

At this point, we are far more likely to see a congressman dunking on someone on social media than acting to defend the document he swore to uphold.

Worse, Democrats are often cheerleaders for more executive abuse.

The White House, also abnormally, feels unfettered in regulating the economy and our lives with no oversight from the legislative branch or voters.

Biden openly ignores the court. The most obvious example is the unconstitutional student loan “forgiveness” plan, a transparent effort to bribe younger voters.

Sure, the Colorado ballot case was so weak that even Justice Sonia Sotomayor couldn’t go along with Democrats. That’s rare. If it weren’t for originalists (for lack of a better word), the country would have been plunged into chaos long ago, and not only on the political front.

In July 2020, the Supreme Court’s approval rating stood at 58%.

A few months earlier, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened justices with a “whirlwind” if they ignored the will of the Democratic Party.

Democrats have been ratcheting up their attacks on the court since former President Barack Obama used his State of the Union to publicly castigate it upholding the First Amendment.

Since that time, a concerted project among donors, politicians and major media organizations to smear and delegitimize the high court has been underway.

It’s working: As of the last poll taken, the court’s approval rating had fallen to 41% and its disapproval was at 58%, most of the change driven by left-wing voters.

Most of the justices have been impressively resistant to the pressures of politics. The court, obviously, was conceived to be impervious to the vagaries of public opinion.

This is an upsetting notion for people like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), one of the nation’s leading conspiracy theorists, who believes low poll numbers are proof of a legitimacy problem. What, one wonders, does that say about the 12% approval of Congress?

Every time the Left suffers a setback at SCOTUS, it accuses justices with long histories of consistent judicial philosophy of corruption.

When the conservatives lose — as they did recently with North Carolina redistricting and the case covering gender dysphoria under disability laws — the media act like it is some huge surprise that the court didn’t act reflexively partisan.

This, like so many of the contemporary Left’s accusations, is just projection.

The reason the Left has a poor record in front of the court — and the trend goes back to Obama’s historic string of losses — isn’t that SCOTUS is bought: It’s that the contemporary Left’s vision of governance conflicts with the Constitution.

If the Left doesn’t destroy the court, it is likely blue states will begin ignoring it.

But for now, SCOTUS remains perhaps the last institutional bulwark against lawlessness and nuttery.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist.

热点：卡尔 法院