As I’ve noted before (most recently, here, but also here and here), liberal commentators have been quite busy of late lecturing us all on the differences between Bad Conservatives (the sort they are afraid President Bush will nominate to the Supreme Court) and Good Conservatives (the kind they would like to see him nominate). The latter are generally described as “pragmatists,” which ostensibly means the nominee is not addicted to any judicial philosophy but in fact usually means only that the nominee can be predicted to reach the “right” result at least some of the time, like Justice O’Connor.
Now comes the Los Angeles Times to instruct us about “The Right Conservative“:
Unfortunately, perhaps, we are trapped by a belief that pragmatism is for politicians, that judges should be guided by a philosophy, and that liberals are not likely to practice or advocate moderate pragmatism when it is their turn to pick judges again. [How true!]
But “conservative” can mean several things in a Supreme Court justice. It can mean one who believes strongly in stare decisis, the legal principle of not overturning established doctrines. Liberal enthusiasm for stare decisis in a conservative era is suspiciously convenient. If Earl Warren had embraced stare decisis, we wouldn’t have had Brown vs. Board of Education. A second meaning of “conservative” in a justice is one who believes in and practices strict construction
” A second meaning of “conservative” in a justice is one who believes in and practices strict construction
Its always worth the entertainment value to see the Left do its mental gymnastics as they count the angels on the head of a pin whiule trying to justify their methods. Having them tell conservatives what to do is a joke. Since they have politicized the courts I see no reason not to employ the same guidelines they haqve used. Overtrun Roe Vs Wade great. Over turn the ridiculous decisions regarding sodomy and private property I sure hope so.
We’ll see the Left whine that they can’t use the courts to impose a communist agenda that they can’t foist on the electorate without committing suicide. If the Left moonbat wingnuts think they can win this I say bring it on. I can’t wait to see what happens to the Senator that endorses the Supreme Courts recent decisions.
A few comments: Whenever we talk about the Constitution, I think we should ALWAYS include the Declaration of Independence, as in “We hold these truths to be self evident…” The basis for my request is Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, who used these words of the Declaration much as the vision statement for his political 1st Principles.
I read an account the other day of how President Clinton selected Ruth Bader Ginsberg as his supreme court nominee: he asked some Republican Senators to suggest names that they thought they could support (as in “with the advice and consent”). Sen Hatch had Judge Ginsberg on his short list. Wouldn’t it be nice if Pres Bush did the same?
I note that of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court 7 have been nominated by Republican Presidents. How vilely liberal can they be? And how far to the right must the next appointments be to satisfy the current Republican base?