A recent article at the Atlantic explains why the Democrats running against the conservatives in the Supreme Court is a good strategy.
When I think of Bush v Gore, Citizens United, and now Affordable Care Act, it is amazing how deferential the Democratic party is to the Supreme Court when it does a horrible job of dispensing justice. I agree with the author of the article that:
[...]the members of the court are not due some extra-special respect and immunity from criticism. Just ask the conservatives who relentlessly attack the court regarding the rights of accused criminals and of women regarding their reproductive health. This is a democracy; we are encouraged to criticize our politicians (even unelected, appointed politicians). And we can criticize them with emotion.
Both the American public and elected officials should not be afraid of subjecting the Supreme Court -- a decidedly political institution -- to the same political arguments and passions to which we subject the rest of Washington, D.C.
The author also suggests a good means for Democrats to make the argument and keep their nose clean. By using a Citizens United enabled superPAC to organize the campaign. The
[...]a tool for minimizing [the] strategic risk -- uncoordinated super PACs made possible, ironically, through this court's Citizens United decision and other rulings. His supporters could fund the negative attack ads undermining the court's support and [the Democrats] would have plausible deniability.
I think it is brilliant.
Sorry for the short diary, but it looks like a simple strategy. Got to run, but I'll be back to answer comments.