In an unsigned editorial, (Judgment Day) by inference, the editors at “The New Republic” have proclaimed their support for The Alien and Sedition Acts, particularly the Second Act used to prosecute and imprison “journalists.” The editors argue persuasively that the will of Congress, or more precisely, the will of a simple majority in Congress should be virtually inviolate. In fact, they cite no instance in which the Supreme Court has appropriately overturned a law promulgated by Congress. Instead, they argue:

But overruling democratically elected officials is an inherently audacious act, which is why the justices must use their power in this regard thoughtfully.

“Thoughtfully” means, of course, as the editors and only the editors deem un-audacious.

Presumably, they also roundly applaud Dred Scott in which the Supreme Court failed to overturn laws declaring American of African lineage to be chattel and not people recognized by the United States Constitution; and goodness knows, they despise the Court that ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, that laws passed by Congress denying “equal” education opportunities to Americans of African decent were not Constitutional. Good grief: Congress had said “They’re cool.”

Finally, it appears that the editors lack confidence in their appeal and, as “progressives,” characteristically do, they resort to a patent lie:

The policy consequences of overturning the Affordable Care Act, even in part, would be severe: Many millions of Americans would lose access to health insurance while many more would lose crucial consumer and financial protections. For some, it might literally be the difference between life and death.

This is a preposterous canard, for, health insurance treats no one. Health providers do. And, hospitals that take public funds – that would be each and every one – must provide health coverage for the uninsured. It’s an expensive proposition, but, it is the alternative.

Finally, in a brazen display of hubris, the editors are sure they can bully the Supreme Court into submission with the threat that they’ll be unloved if they don’t embrace “progressives” dreamy vision of Amerika.

But, the long-term effects on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy could also be devastating. If the former doesn’t sway members of the Court’s conservative majority, perhaps the latter will.