An excellent article at Five Thirty Eight points out that while conservatives claim that the Democrats want to appoint “liberal activist judges” to the Supreme Court, statistically, the most activist court in in modern history was the Rehnquist Court, a conservative court.
The same article points out how the make-up of the court — conservative v. liberal — has strongly affected their decisions. In fact, “The whole point of the Court is to rule laws unconstitutional based on justices applying their philosophical interpretations of the Constitution.” Thus, the ritual hazing of Supreme Court nominees, which requires them to promise that they will strictly adhere to the rule of law and judicial precedent, is nonsense. “The attempt to somehow disconnect what the justices actually do and what the nominees must promise they won’t do is a magnificent farce that insults all of us.”
UPDATE: Russ Feingold speaks to this issue head-on, and does a great job!
At this point, perhaps we should all accept that the best definition of a ‘judicial activist’ is a judge who decides a case in a way you don’t like.
4 Comments
The attempt to somehow disconnect what the justices actually do and what the nominees must promise they won’t do is a magnificent farce that insults all of us
I was thinking this exact thing.
I know she can’t do it, but I would love hear Sotomayor ask the Senators how they would like Title VII to be interpreted in a situation like the New Haven fire fighter test.
I keep hearing the phrase, “The Constitution is not a living document”. Really? Then why has it been amended 27 times? So, Mr. Hannity, women should not be able to vote? We should not have abolished slavery? Men with skin color not white shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Because that’s what the Founders believed.
Not to be overly picky, but the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) was part of the original constitution as ratified. Which leaves 17 amendments subsequently made to the constitution. And two of those (18 & 21 – prohibition and its repeal) cancel each other out, so there are actually only 15 amendments.
Which is pretty good for a document written over 200 years ago.
Living document…except when they want to wall off Roe v. Wade from breathing. Then its dead as can be.