Over at the Wall Street Journal Ilya Shapiro examines why the Obama Administration’s track record with the Supreme Court has been so poor:
This term alone, the high court has ruled unanimously against the government on religious liberty, criminal procedure and property rights. When the administration can’t get even a single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of the law, that’s a sign there’s something wrong with its constitutional vision.
Maybe Justice Ginsburg has become a right wing ideologue. Or maybe the lawyers representing the Obama Administration aren’t good enough. Or maybe the administration is wrong.
Read the whole thing. Mr. Shapiro examines the results case by case.
My sense is that the Obama Administration, being constrained from being able to accomplish anything on the legislative front, has been making increasingly broad assertions of power on the regulatory front. This is resulting in some uniquely successful challenges in the courts that in the past have been quite deferential to regulatory matters. Of course, some of these losses don’t reach the SCOTUS (like when the SCOTUS refused to review the court decision invalidating some of the Dodd-Frank rules), so I wish Shapiro would have looked broader.
That was widely predicted (including by me) back in 2008.
That was widely predicted (including by me) back in 2008.
And didn’t you predict that as just a continuation of trend? Because that’s all it is. Eventually one of the other branches was going to grow a pair and start pushing back….