The Crisis in Teaching Constitutional Law [View all]
NYT - Gift Link

If you attended law school at any time over the past half-century, your course in constitutional law likely followed a well-worn path.
First you learned the basics: the Supreme Courts power to say what the Constitution means. Then you read and discussed cases that set precedents for different parts of the Constitution the commerce clause, presidential powers, due process, equal protection and so on. Finally you studied how the court balances individual liberties against the governments need to act in the public interest.
It was all based on an underlying premise that has long bound together everyone involved in the project of training the next generation of lawyers: The Supreme Court is a legitimate institution of governance, and the nine justices, whatever their political backgrounds, care about getting the law right. They are more interested in upholding fundamental democratic principles and, perhaps most important, preserving the courts integrity, than about imposing a partisan agenda.
The premise no longer holds today. Many in the legal world still believed in the old virtues even after Bush v. Gore, the 5-to-4 ruling that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election on what appeared to many Americans to be partisan grounds. But now, the courts hard-right supermajority, installed in recent years through a combination of hypocrisy and sheer partisan muscle, has eviscerated any consensus.
Under the pretense of practicing so-called originalism, which claims to interpret the Constitution in line with how it was understood at the nations founding, these justices have moved quickly to upend decades of established precedent from political spending to gun laws to voting rights to labor unions to abortion rights to affirmative action to the separation of church and state. Whatever rationale or methodology the justices apply in a given case, the result virtually always aligns with the policy priorities of the modern Republican Party.