“Over the last probably two decades, the court has been moving in a very pro-arbitration direction, making it increasingly more difficult for everyday Americans to have their claims against corporations brought before a court of law,” says Elizabeth Wydra of the Constitutional Accountability Center. “The Roberts court has taken this to an extreme.”
CAC In the News
“Too often progressives cede the Constitution to conservatives, in the courts and in the public square, but we do that at our peril – especially since the Constitution so often points to progressive outcomes,” said Doug Kendall, head of the Constitutional Accountability Center. Kendall said the two groups’ “collaboration on marriage equality cases should be a wake-up call to liberals about the power and progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.”
Our organizations regularly take opposite sides on big constitutional issues. Whether it's the Affordable Care Act, campaign finance, presidential power, or nearly anything else, the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center and the libertarian Cato Institute typically disagree. Yet we absolutely agree that the Constitution require states to extend marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That's why we've jointly filed a brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to affirm the district courts in Utah and Oklahoma that struck down those states' marriage restrictions.
This Supreme Court is badly out of touch with the Constitution and political reality. Last week, in a 5-4 ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Roberts Court dealt another blow to our Constitution's promise of democracy, striking down aggregate contribution limits designed to prevent massive campaign contributions to candidates, parties and PACs.
Health care reform supporters can no longer ignore the possible second crack these new legal challenges to ACA exchanges might give Justice Scalia and kindred spirits at inflicting damage far greater than remaining market or political threats. To best the Right’s predictable messaging blitz, ACA advocates must detail the vast scale of the chaos and injustice for which a court choosing to embrace opponents’ implausible claim will bear full responsibility. Most important, health care reformers need to underscore that, on the merits, the opponents’ legal theory is as absurd as their underlying fable that the ACA’s architects themselves intended the law to self-destruct.