Will the Supreme Court lose legitimacy if it strikes down the health care law along partisan lines?

[pampango]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/weekinreview/06liptak.html?ref=us

Now the justices appear to line up along the ideological spectrum in partisan lockstep. The ones appointed by Democrats form the court’s liberal wing. The ones appointed by Republicans make up a conservative bloc, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the ideological middle but leaning right. "Should a bare majority of justices composed solely of the court’s Republican-appointed members strike down a Democratic president’s signature legislative achievement, the public perception of the court may be altered.

“In the aftermath of Bush v. Gore, which no one has forgotten, this will be looked at in deeply partisan ways,” says Barry Friedman, a law professor at New York University and the author of “The Will of the People,” an examination of the role that public opinion plays in constitutional cases at the court. “For the good of the republic, it’s better if it’s not 5-to-4.”

But the suspicion that something political is afoot is unlikely to go away. It is entirely plausible that when the Supreme Court decides the ultimate fate of the health care law, it will do so along partisan lines, with the five justices appointed by Republicans voting to strike it down and the four appointed by Democrats in dissent.

A decision from the Supreme Court will probably not come for a year and a half or more, and there will be many twists and turns along the way. But some scholars are already wondering how much damage, if any, a party-line ruling striking down the law would do to the court’s prestige, authority and legitimacy."

For better or worse, it seems doubtful that even a 5-4 partisan overturning of Obama's bill will hurt public perception of the court in the short run, if Bush v. Gore and Citizens United did not do it.

[Bluebear]

1. Bush v Gore forever changed their "legitimacy"

[madrchsod]

2. +1.....

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Yep

[ixion]

3. spot on, that...

[ET Awful]

8. I was going to say that.

You beat me to it.

[City Lights]

9. Exactly! nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. They lost it when they did Bush/Gore!

Zero credibility.

ZERO.

:mad:

[AndyTiedye]

5. That Didn't Stop Them With "Citizens United" or "Bush v. Gore"

They will overturn it along party lines and the insurance companies will get to screw us with even more impunity for another generation.

[leveymg]

6. The last decade has been all about delegitimization of American institutions.

From the New York Times to the CIA to the SCOTUS, the joke has been on us.

[WinkyDink]

7. Horse done left that barn.

[WestSeattle2]

11. I haven't considered them legitimate for years. Any veneer of

impartiality went out the window with Bush v. Gore.

That was a serious, serious blunder on the part of the court. It will forever change how everyone - of all political stripes - views the court.

It went from a Supreme Court to a kangaroo court in blink of an eye.

[Scruffy1]

12. They have lacked legitimacy since about 1804

First they manufactured the right to nullify laws and then the court has nearly always been stacked against "We the People". Whether it is the Dred Scott decision or the 9-0 vote to keep Eugene Debs in prison for saying he thought the Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, banning legislation against child labor, or just fucking over the ballot box I'm convinced that USA would be better off without a Supreme Court which is appointed by the completely corporate owned US Senate. Doing away with the US senate would be marvelous, also.

[mazzarro]

13. Will Only Confirm The Obvious

Should I presume that the article meant legitimacy in the opinion of MSM (Mumbo-jumbo Stream Media)?
Most thinking people have long written them off as being partisan since Bush v Gore and the
Citizen United case solidified that opinion - case closed.

[Golden Raisin]

14. Tragically for this County

the Supreme Court is running pretty low on being impartial and non-partisan.

[bemildred]

15. What legitimacy? nt