Prominent conservative commentator Charles C. W. Cooke recently voiced a strong opinion regarding the Supreme Court's historical conduct, asserting that an unspecified "era was not good" and that the Court should prioritize "truth" over decades of precedent. In a tweet, Cooke stated, > "I don’t think that era was good. I think the Court should tell the truth, even if previous Courts have declined to do so, even if they have declined to do so for decades." This statement reflects a consistent theme in Cooke's judicial philosophy, which often emphasizes originalism and a critique of judicial activism.
Cooke, known for his work with National Review and his participation in legal discussions, frequently advocates for a strict interpretation of the Constitution based on its original public meaning. His perspective suggests that the Supreme Court, at various points in its history, has strayed from its constitutional mandate by legislating from the bench or imposing policy preferences rather than adhering to the text and historical understanding of the law. This aligns with a broader conservative legal movement that criticizes periods often associated with judicial expansion of rights.
His call for the Court to "tell the truth" implies a return to what he perceives as a more faithful and objective application of constitutional principles. This often involves rejecting interpretations that he views as judicial overreach or as attempts to infuse contemporary moral or political values into the Constitution. Cooke has previously critiqued arguments for a "constitutional morality" that he believes would lead to a "judicial activism of the right," mirroring the errors he attributes to past liberal courts.
While not explicitly naming the "era" in his tweet, Cooke's past commentary and the broader originalist discourse frequently point to periods like the Warren Court, which saw significant expansions of civil rights and liberties, or even earlier decisions like Dred Scott v. Sandford. He has argued that Dred Scott was a flawed application of originalism, not due to a failure to uphold moral principles, but because it disregarded historical evidence. His stance suggests that the "truth" lies in a rigorous, text-and-history-based interpretation, even if it means overturning long-standing precedents that deviate from this approach.
This perspective underscores a significant debate within legal circles about the role of the judiciary, the weight of precedent, and the methodology for interpreting the Constitution. Cooke's statement reinforces the view that the Court's legitimacy is tied to its adherence to a perceived objective truth, rather than its willingness to adapt to evolving societal norms or to uphold prior rulings deemed constitutionally unsound.
