[The Supreme Court] should presume laws to be constitutional, just as trial courts presume accused criminals to be innocent.
As well he might be. Sheesh. It’s a fundamental principle of law: ei qui affirmat non qui negat incumbit probabio (“the burden of proof is on he who affirms, not he who denies”). And this dimwitted idea shows why: any presumption of constitutionality in the Supreme Court is a presumption that what the court exists to test has already been proved. If you presume proof, there isn’t really much point in having the court in the first place. It’s the very opposite of the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, which stems from very the fact that the case has yet to be proven.
So, are the editors of the New Republic guilty of rank knuckleheaded stupidity, or willful, malicious, deceit? Must be one or the other. And, since Leftists are officially smarter than everyone else…
(H/T: Rand Simberg, for both links. Yes, this is another comment that grew too substantial…)