Commentary
Among the Supreme Court cases decided this year, none has been more misunderstood than Moore v. Harper (pdf).
The Moore case illustrates how difficult some of the court’s work can be. It also illustrates the ignorance and partisanship of many legal commentators and the foolishness behind the ubiquitous claim that the court has a “6–3 conservative bloc.”
Here are some striking aspects of Moore v. Harper and how the case was publicized: Because the principal defendant was the Republican-controlled state legislature of North Carolina, liberal commentators dismissed the defendant’s arguments as extreme and unprecedented. In fact, the North Carolina legislature’s arguments were very mainstream, based on a line of precedent dating back to 1798.
Because the Republicans lost the case, the dominant media hailed the result as a liberal victory. Yet the court’s ruling is probably consistent with the Constitution’s original meaning. Normally, the media would call such a result “conservative.”
Although the court’s opinion probably reached the right conclusion, it did so while largely ignoring evidence of the Constitution’s original meaning.
More seriously, the opinion contains language that may prove troublesome the next time America faces another disputed presidential election.
The so-called six-justice “conservative bloc” once again proved not to be a bloc at all. Three of the six agreed with the supposedly liberal result. One thought the case shouldn’t have been decided. Only two disagreed on the merits. Some “bloc.”…