On the occasion of Mitch McConnell's reign as leader of Senate Republicans coming to an end, George Will offers an effusive encomium. There's much to dispute in the column, but I'll focus exclusively on a single claim [which I've emphasized] within this paragraph, wherein Will lists the Kentucky senator's chief accomplishments:
Protecting free speech from attacks from left and right. Using the legislature to make federal courts more judicial and less legislative. And demonstrating that what the Declaration of Independence calls “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” implies that there can be indecent truckling to opinion.
Nope. Will is mischaracterizing McConnell's accomplishment. First, to give the long serving caucus leader credit: he has been successful by focusing relentlessly on gaining partisan advantage, being willing to warp the spirit of Senate rules, and offering insincere adherence to a series of changing 'principles' as justification. Regarding the courts, McConnell has succeeded in packing the federal bench, and in particular the Supreme Court, with ideologues in service to the interests of the Republican Party.
It has been a grand project, which has taken years to carry out. But making "federal courts more judicial and less legislative" isn't a thing; it's a circumlocution crafted to cover up what has actually taken place. That's a long story, and one I've told in bits and pieces over a number of years. The current status of the Roberts Court illustrates this story:
Through its decisions, the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court has constricted voting rights, encouraged extreme gerrymandering, and opened the floodgates to big money in our elections. In each of these areas the court has trampled on (often decades old) precedent, wrenched Constitutional provisions from history and context, disabled amendments to the Constitution, and overruled decisions of Congress and actions of the Executive Branch. It has amassed power unto itself by aggressively encroaching on the prerogatives of the other two branches of government.
In each of these areas, its decisions have advanced the interests of the Republican Party and disadvantaged the Democratic Party. Incursions to shrink Americans' right to vote and to fair representation have disproportionately affected Democratic constituencies. The court's rulings have also disabled the public policy preferences of the Democratic Party. When Democrats campaign, win elections, and seek to enact promised public policies -- that is to say: legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the president; the Executive Branch has engaged in rule making and enforcement of that legislation -- the nation's highest court has grasped power to impose its will and enable only policy preferences of the GOP, regardless of the choices of voters, the will of Congress, and actions of the president.
George Will can write clearly if he chooses to do so. In writing "make federal courts more judicial and less legislative," he obscures what has happened during McConnell's tenure in the Senate. As a partisan Republican for decades, Will's policy preferences are clear enough (as are John Roberts' and his majority). His language, however, serves to mislead, so that principle, rather than partisanship appears to rule the day.
Principle? No. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Supreme Court is corruptly partisan. Mitch McConnell, with other partisans, gets credit for that. But let's state it plainly.