Even a Blind Man Ought To See

It is hard to transform the U.S. without the consent of Congress and the approval of judges. The story of Democrat Barack Obama’s presidency is the story of a tug of war with the judiciary. His initiatives have run into not only a legislative power under Republican control, but the tribunals capable of ruining them.

It happened with the health care reform, which extended coverage to millions of people without health insurance. Adopted by Congress in 2010, Obamacare faced a guerrilla war that ended up in the Supreme Court.

It is happening again with the president’s unilateral actions to regularize millions of undocumented immigrants, suspended by a judge in Texas. The game, then and now, is played on three boards. It confronts Democrats with Republicans, federal government with the states and executive power with judiciary.

It is of no use to complain about conservative obstructionism: Obama’s difficulties in implementing his reforms — and consolidate his legacy — are the price of polarization. Both health care and migratory reforms were adopted without the consent of the Republican Party, which represents half the country. The U.S. does not transform without Congress or the judges.

The founders wanted to prevent the president from governing on his own. From the end of racial segregation to George W. Bush’s victory, through the legalization of abortion, the judiciary is the one that has truly shaped the country.

In 1937, in the midst of the clash with Supreme Court on the New Deal, future judge of the Supreme Court Felix Frankfurter wrote a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His words are valid for other tribunals and other eras. He said, “Even a blind man ought to see that the Court is in politics.”