The editorial board of the New York Times persists in characterizing the Supreme Court of the United States (and its members) in political terms. This says more about the editorial board than it does about the Supreme Court. What it says is that the board views everything in relation to its political ends. If a decision of the Supreme Court doesn't accord with the progressive ends of the editorial board, then there is only one possible explanation, to wit: the Supreme Court is conservative, and, as such, is trying to thwart the progressive agenda. In fact, law is an autonomous institution, with its own concepts, language, standards, and roles.
Imagine describing every decision by a Major League Baseball umpire in terms of his (or her) baseball loyalties. "The Yankees won the game because most of the umpires on hand are, or were in childhood, fans of the Yankees." This debases our discourse by insisting that all decisions are political. It is also personally insulting, inasmuch as it assumes that participants in institutions such as law or baseball are incapable of being impartial (disinterested, fair). Isn't it possible—indeed, likely—that the umpires based their decisions on what they saw, rather than on what they wanted to happen? Is there no such thing as integrity? And why should judges be any different from umpires? That my judicial decision accords with conservatism, or makes conservatives happy, doesn't mean that it was my goal to promote conservatism, much less that I am a conservative. Nor is it honest to describe my decision as "conservative."
The editorial board of the New York Times (a once-great newspaper, but now little more than a propaganda rag) has almost single-handedly destroyed our national discourse by politicizing everything. But that's what progressives do. In their view, law is political, education is political, art is political, sport is political, war is political, science is political, journalism is political—even the personal is political.
