Supremely Uninterested

In every presidential election since 1992, complaints about subpar Republican candidates (George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney: The names speak for themselves) have been met with a common refrain: This is the most important election in our lifetime, because of the Supreme Court!  Hold your nose and vote for the Republican, no matter what reservations you might have.  Otherwise, a Democratic president will “determine the future of the Court for the next generation.”  The country would return, we were told, to the bad old days of the Warren Court (and just forget, please, until the first Tuesday in November has passed, who appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice).

The hollowness of past appeals was always evident to those who have eyes to see, but even the most politically naive voter should, after 2016, never fall for the Supreme Court gambit again.  Because this year, for the first time in two-and-a-half decades, the argument actually does make sense, and yet the dire warnings have been missing.  Indeed, some of the loudest proponents over the past quarter-century of the idea that the defeat of the Republican presidential candidate would usher in a judicial apocalypse have abandoned the Republican Party this year—George Will, for instance—and some have even indicated that they will vote for Hillary Clinton in November.

This, despite the fact...

Join now to access the full article and gain access to other exclusive features.

Get Started

Already a member? Sign in here