Chief Justice Roberts

Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the Supreme Court.

In this month's Mother Jones, Michael Kazin lays out reasons why the left has to let the Supreme Court go. In recent years, the Court has been a force for progressivism, and we've gotten used to it. But that's not the Court's historic role. With its lifetime appointments and limited number of members, the Court was designed by the framers to be conservative and to drag the heels of democracy, protecting it from the tyranny of the majority. (They wanted democracy, but not too much of it.) Throughout much of American history, therefore, progress has moved through the legislative branch. With the good fortune of a progressive court in the middle of the 20th century, we've lost track of that.

But as welcome ruling followed welcome ruling through the 1960s and early '70s, many progressives seemed to forget that only popular majorities can secure the rights of individuals from attack and erosion. Roe v. Wade is a case in point. That landmark 1973 ruling cut short the slow but steady passage of liberal abortion laws by state legislatures. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote before she joined the Court, the ruling in Roe "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby...deferred stable settlement of the issue."

In the wake of Roe, the anti-abortion movement exploded, impelled by the same rage at "judge-made law" that was once the province of the left. Pro-choicers and their allies then rushed to defend the enemy of their enemy--the Court's perilous liberal majority.

Although we fought for a while, now that the Court seems to be heading back to its historic function of blocking progressive advancement, liberals need to go back to organizing toward legislative battles. Senate Democrats should still insist on the John Roberts paperwork that the Bush Administration is holding back (because, as conservatives like to say, if they've got nothing to hide they should have no problem making the material public), they should still ask Roberts probing questions during the confirmation hearings, and they should still refuse to support the nomination and vote against it on the Senate floor. But short of some sensationalistic find in the judge's background, his nomination won't be derailed, so they shouldn't expend unnecessary energy or capital upon it. Let's use our resources where they can do the most good.