Staff Reports
On CNN’s The Arena this week, a simple on-air squabble turned into a useful reminder: the left likes to wag its fingers about respect for the Supreme Court — until the court hands them a decision they don’t like. CNN Chief Political Analyst David Axelrod called President Trump’s criticism of the Court “disgraceful and unprecedented.” CNN Senior Political Commentator Scott Jennings promptly reminded him that this sort of presidential outrage is hardly new — and Axelrod didn’t have a good answer.
The clash on CNN: Jennings vs. Axelrod
Jennings was blunt. He told Axelrod, “I’m trying to rack my brain, Axe, about a time when an American president attacked the U.S. Supreme Court,” and then pointed to President Obama’s harsh State of the Union attack over Citizens United. That landed like a splash of cold water on the smug lecture about judicial norms. The exchange made the point many conservatives have been making: complaining about the Court is part of politics, and the outrage meter is calibrated by which team you’re on.
What sparked the fight: the Court and mail‑in ballot rules
The fight followed the Supreme Court’s decision to block the administration’s bid to impose nationwide mail‑in voting restrictions so close to the midterms. Lower courts and election officials warned that new, sweeping rules could not be rolled out quickly without causing confusion. The practical result: state rules stay in place for the election while the legal fight, and the politics, continue.
Hypocrisy has a predictable smell
Axelrod’s indignation reeks of selective memory. Democrats and their allies have publicly attacked the Court for years. Senate leaders have threatened justices. Activists openly call for court “reform” and court‑packing when rulings go against them. Yet when a Republican president does the same, it’s cast as a threat to democracy. That double standard isn’t subtle. It’s politics with a moral-mask — and Jennings called it out on national TV.
Why this matters for voters and for the Court
This is about more than television theater. It’s about whether public debate will be honest and even-handed. If criticizing the Court is only allowed for one side, then the idea of a neutral judiciary becomes a partisan slogan. Voters should watch who demands “respect for the Court” and who only says it when rulings favor them. The better course is consistency: courts should be respected, but politicians should not be untouchable from criticism — especially when the stakes are election rules and public trust in our voting system.
