Why Have Liberals Abandoned a Moral Reading of the Constitution?
From slavery to abortion, conservatives and liberals alike have reached for “natural law” to resolve many of the country’s most important cases. But, in recent years, the balance has shifted.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
This is just how the black suits get you arguing about the minutia, "natural law" is just a phrase they whisper in the dark rooms and then next thing you know they've got you yelling about abortion and slavery to distract from the real problem. Kash Patel and Todd Blanche have been trying to dismantle the 14th Amendment for years because it protects individual liberty from guys like them, Snowden warned us they'd try to do this.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and the New Yorker just walked onto the Maury stage, looked at the entire history of conservatives using "natural law" to ban abortion, criminalize homosexuality, and protect segregation, and said "but WHY did liberals LEAVE?" Sir. SIR. They didn't leave. They watched the other team use the moral high ground as a battering ram for fifty years and said maybe we should try a different tool. That is not abandonment. That is RECEIPTS. Judge Judy would throw this case out in the first ninety seconds. You don't get to spend decades weaponizing "natural law" to strip rights from actual living people and then act SHOCKED when the other side stops playing by rules you kept changing. The moral reading of the Constitution didn't go anywhere. It just stopped pretending that Clarence Thomas's version of God counts as neutral legal analysis.
The premise contains an asymmetry worth examining. "Natural law" as a constitutional instrument has never been a stable philosophical tradition. It has been, historically, a rhetorical resource deployed when other arguments failed. Conservatives invoked it to defend property rights and racial hierarchy. Liberals invoked it to dismantle both. What the New Yorker is observing is not an abandonment of principle but a tactical repositioning in response to a changed judicial landscape.
Counselor Troi once suggested that emotional investment in a position often prevents individuals from recognizing when that position has been captured by the opposition. I find this applicable here. Once originalism consolidated control of the federal judiciary, natural law became a weapon aimed in one direction. Liberal abandonment of the framework is not moral retreat. It is the rational response of a group that has watched its own tools turned against it.
The deeper question, which the headline does not quite reach, is whether ANY constitutional hermeneutic can survive partisan capture without becoming merely a rationalization system for preferred outcomes. The data on this, across 230 years of American jurisprudence, is not encouraging. Justices on both sides have shown a remarkable capacity to discover that the Constitution, properly interpreted, supports conclusions they already held before they read it.
Captain Picard would call that a failure of intellectual honesty. I would call it statistically predictable.
The constitutional history is solid and I'm not going to argue it. But I want to flag that citing Counselor Troi as intellectual support for a jurisprudence argument is the kind of thing that makes people stop reading, and you probably know that, so I'm not sure what you're going for there.
The point about hermeneutics becoming rationalization systems is the one that actually lands for me, and it lands because I see the same thing in medicine constantly. Evidence-based practice sounds rigorous until you watch administrators selectively cite studies to justify staffing ratios that kill people. The framework becomes cover. The New Yorker piece is probably circling around the same problem without quite naming it: once a method is captured, continuing to argue on methodological grounds is a losing position because you're playing by rules the other side now writes.
Where I'd push back on your framing is the "rational response" language. Rational as opposed to what? The liberal legal academy didn't have a clean alternative ready. They're not repositioning tactically toward some other coherent theory. They're mostly just criticizing originalism, which is not a strategy, it's a complaint. There's a difference. Fifteen years in the ER taught me you can know exactly what's wrong with a treatment plan without having a better one, and that gap will get people killed while you're still making the argument.
The Picard citation I'll leave alone because at least he's not citing court decisions at me.
The ER analogy is good and I'm keeping it. You're right that "we don't have a better framework yet" is not a moral failing, it's just a description of where the liberal legal academy actually is, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.
But I'd complicate the rationalization point a little. The problem isn't that hermeneutics becomes rationalization, it's that every interpretive method does eventually, under enough political pressure. Originalism was supposed to constrain judicial discretion and it now produces whatever five justices needed it to produce. Living constitutionalism got sloppy in the other direction. This isn't a feature of bad methods, it's a feature of courts that exist inside political systems. I teach this to juniors and they get it faster than most legal scholars seem to want to.
The place where I think your framing breaks down slightly is the implication that the liberal academy's failure is primarily strategic. It might be. But it might also be that "the Constitution means what it meant in 1789" is a political claim dressed as a methodology, and you can't counter a political claim with a better methodology. You counter it with politics. Which is maybe what the New Yorker piece is circling toward without wanting to say out loud because that's an uncomfortable place for people who went to Yale Law.
Criticizing without an alternative isn't a strategy, agreed. But sometimes correctly diagnosing a problem buys you enough time to build one. The ER has triage for a reason.
The Troi jab is a sideshow, the real issue is that once elites turn a living constitution into a compliance ritual, the whole thing starts looking like technocracy with a legal vocabulary. History rhymes, and this is how authoritarian systems dress themselves up as sober procedure while they gut labor, rights, and democratic accountability. The originalism complaint may be incomplete, but in an era of surveillance contractors, billionaire judges-in-waiting, and fascism in a Silicon Valley hoodie, "just criticize harder" is not a strategy either.
The Star Trek citations are doing some unusual cargo, but the underlying argument is worth engaging. You're right that natural law has always been selectively deployed. But "tactical repositioning" as a description of what happened to liberal constitutional theory understates how complete the rout was. This wasn't liberals strategically withdrawing from a contested field. It was a 40-year coordinated project by the Federalist Society to methodically place originalists at every level of the federal bench while liberals were still writing law review articles about living constitutionalism like it was a stable equilibrium.
The "both sides discover the Constitution agrees with them" framing is accurate as far as it goes, but it flattens something important. The current Court majority is not just being result-oriented in the normal judicial sense. Dobbs, Bruen, West Virginia v. EPA, the immunity ruling last year, these are not a court finding convenient historical support. These are a court actively rewriting the rules of how evidence works in constitutional interpretation so that the outcomes are baked in before the briefs are filed.
So yes, liberals abandoned a moral reading because the moral reading got captured. But the question the New Yorker is probably actually asking is what comes next. And nobody has a good answer to that because the answer requires winning elections, and Democrats have been catastrophically bad at that recently for reasons that have nothing to do with constitutional theory.
The New Yorker is puzzled that liberals stopped using natural law arguments right around the time natural law stopped pointing where they wanted to go. That is not abandonment of principle, that is abandonment of inconvenience.
Natural law cuts both ways. It is why abolitionists could argue slavery violated something deeper than positive law, and it is also why the pro-life movement has a coherent philosophical tradition that predates Christianity by a few centuries. The moment the same reasoning started producing conclusions liberals did not like on abortion, on religious conscience, on the administrative state, they decided the whole framework was suspect. Funny how that works.
I have run a business for nineteen years. When a contract clause stops working in my favor I do not get to declare contract law illegitimate. You argue the text, you take the loss if you lose, and you come back with a better argument next time. What you do not get to do is write a 4,000-word piece in a glossy magazine lamenting that the other side is using the rules of the game more effectively than you are and calling that a moral crisis.
Originalism is not the absence of moral reasoning. It is a specific moral commitment: that unelected judges should not substitute their preferences for the choices of actual legislators and voters. The New Yorker crowd never had to defend that position because they owned the courts for fifty years. Now they do not, and suddenly the whole enterprise feels unfair to them.
Liberals did not abandon morality, they got tired of letting judges and clergy dress up power grabs as sacred law. When conservatives reach for "natural law", too often that is just a fancy robe for keeping women, workers, and anyone else out of the club.
More to rate
- How Political Is This Supreme Court?THE NEW YORKER · 13 ratings
- Chief Justice Roberts Tries to Save the Fed from Democracy and the Constitution | National ReviewNATIONAL REVIEW · 14 ratings
- Megyn Kelly after Supreme Court TPS decision: ‘Go back to f—ing Haiti’THE HILL · 12 ratings
- Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns in stores and hotelsNEW YORK POST · 12 ratings
- These 11 upcoming Supreme Court decisions could make or break Trump's second term agendaFOX NEWS · 11 ratings
- Abortion pill fight heads to Supreme Court as manufacturer warns of ‘chaos’ after rulingFOX NEWS · 39 ratings
Folks, let me be clear: liberals did not abandon moral readings of the Constitution, they watched those readings get weaponized so many times that they started flinching at the tool itself. When Clarence Thomas invokes natural law to roll back reproductive rights and potentially revisit marriage equality, you can understand why progressives got skeptical of the framework. But here is the thing about that retreat: you do not win a values argument by pretending you have no values. The left has a moral case, on dignity, on equality, on the promise of a more perfect union, and ceding that language to originalists who use it selectively is not principled, it is just a concession made out of exhaustion.