R: Defend the Roberts Court

During his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings, John Roberts famously declared that "judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them… it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire." Now seven years later (and several changes to the Court later), the United States finds itself host to what the New York Times has concluded to be the "most conservative in decades," issuing controversial decisions in domains that have included abortion and the First, Second, and Eighth Amendments. Even more than the decisions themselves, what has most prompted the ire of the Roberts Courts' critics is the argument that the Court has acted in a highly activist manner to reach its decisions, undermining precedent and their stated commitment to judicial restraint. This Thursday, the Federalist Party will weigh this criticism and issue a judgment of our own on whether the Roberts Court has overstepped its proper role. Is the Roberts Court truly one in which conservatives should be proud?