I agree that Supreme court appointees are a huge perk for the president in
shaping the nation.Will writes of the GOP."from excessive
respect for judicial "restraint" and condemnation of
"activism."He must be looking at a different GOP than I
am.More and more, judicial "activism" is defined as a ruling
with which I disagree.And what is the GOP "judicial
restraint" that he refers to?What I find sad is when some of
these justices do not recuse themselves from participating in a decision with
which they have a definite conflict of interest.Both justices Scalia
and Kegan fit into this category.What I find is that the Left carps
about Scalia's conflict and gives Kegan a pass.The right cites only
Kegans conflict.Which shows that people dont really want a fair
court. They just want it skewed to their liking.
Finally a conservative who is honest enough to tell the truth. Conservatives
want supreme court decision they like, regardless of the legal reasoning. When
activism achieves that end, they'll take activism. Same with restraint.
I'm not saying liberals are any different, but conservatives always claim
allegiance to a higher principle.
We need supreme court judges that make good decisions in context of the law.
This discussion of liberal or conservative judges that persistes suggests that,
in a not so subtle way, we want the judges to be political lapdogs, not
impartial legal minds. Not good.
This is too funny.First, call them what you want, economic rights
ARE inferior to more "fundamental" rights such as speech, association,
etc.Second, Judicial restraint is "pernicious"? Mr.
Will’s opinion might change if President Obama is reelected and a liberal
court majority installed.But seriously, for the republic to
function, there must be some degree of continuity. If we have no judicial
restraint and each generation of justices feels completely able to rewrite the
last set’s rulings, there will be no continuity and the rule of law will
start to look a lot more like the political flavor of the month..Does judicial restraint mean that justices can never revisit prior decisions?
No. But doing so should be done carefully and with "restraint".
Legally speaking a courts primary responsibility is to uphold the constitution,
not the law (passed by a democratically elected majority), this means that on
occasion a court ought to strike down a law created by a congress or a
legislature. Next a courts responsibility is to uphold the law.Many
would argue (including me) that an even higher responsibility of a court is to
uphold justice. Which in essence is an eternal law of the universe, or of God.
For example .. a judge who during the days of slavery, who had the opportunity
to free a slave (illegally and unconstutionally) would still be right in doing
it.This would be defined by some as judicial activism, and so it is
and so be it.
George Will is on the money. Too bad many conservatives are going to be ticked
off for him telling the truth.