One effect of the breakdown is that the law is now almost always spoken of popularly in terms of outcomes that are indistinguishable from political ends. Whether a judicial nominee opposes a cause like abortion or affirmative action is now considered a legal question. Studies asses judges in terms of the causes they back or oppose, and find, for example, that appointees of the Reagan and [George H. W.] Bush administrations are far more likely than appointees of the Carter Administration to oppose the claims of criminal defendants, of environmentalists, or of civil-rights advocates.

Legal thinkers have tried to rationalize controversial decisions in terms of judicial philosophy, but the failure of their ideas to win public understanding and approval has reinforced the impression that the ends of law and of politics are the same….

…. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court need to forge a new legal consensus. The prospects that they will do so any time soon seem dim…. But if a new consensus is not reached, the law will increasingly become what cynical observers contend that it already is—just another tool of power.