Nowhere Does Justice Scalia state...
That a conservative justice is more or less likely to ask "what outcome do I want?" than a leftist judge!
This is exactly why the fight for judge appointments is becoming so nasty because individual justices are inserting their partisan politics into their decisions.
A not so classic case (in the sense it is still fairly fresh and recent in history) we can look at as an example of conservative judicial activism is the case of Justice Roy Moore. The details of the case are in this National Review Article and that article makes it quite plain Justice Moore's intentions were clearly unconstitutional and the placing of the Ten Commandment monument was his personal policy preference. Enter William Pryor.
William Pryor was Alabama's Attorney General and DESPITE his religious beliefs he worked to remove Justice Moore from the bench for violating the law in this matter! That is given Mr. Pryor's religious beliefs one may assume he would favor having a nice big Ten Commandments monument around, but this was not the case. Mr. Pryor recognized the law and higher courts dictated otherwise. That is to say he did not let his "personal policy preferences" dictate his actions in this matter; he followed the law! Whereas, Justice Moore was inserting his personal policy preferences into and over the law.
In fact, Mr. Pryor has resisted partisan pressure from people on his side of the aisle to make sure the statutes were enforced as written, not as he personally would have wanted to.
So judicial activism is to be resisted no matter whose activism it is. Judicial activism no matter who launches it is dangerous to our liberties. Why is it the left does not see this? Because it is the only way they can accomplish their policy goals, that is why.
It is a lot easier to convince a five judges than an entire legislative body answerable directly to their constituency. The left does not want to give up their grip on the judicial activists so they fight like mad for judges who will not only continue to rewrite law but rewrite law in their favor.
This is exactly why the fight for judge appointments is becoming so nasty because individual justices are inserting their partisan politics into their decisions.
A not so classic case (in the sense it is still fairly fresh and recent in history) we can look at as an example of conservative judicial activism is the case of Justice Roy Moore. The details of the case are in this National Review Article and that article makes it quite plain Justice Moore's intentions were clearly unconstitutional and the placing of the Ten Commandment monument was his personal policy preference. Enter William Pryor.
William Pryor was Alabama's Attorney General and DESPITE his religious beliefs he worked to remove Justice Moore from the bench for violating the law in this matter! That is given Mr. Pryor's religious beliefs one may assume he would favor having a nice big Ten Commandments monument around, but this was not the case. Mr. Pryor recognized the law and higher courts dictated otherwise. That is to say he did not let his "personal policy preferences" dictate his actions in this matter; he followed the law! Whereas, Justice Moore was inserting his personal policy preferences into and over the law.
In fact, Mr. Pryor has resisted partisan pressure from people on his side of the aisle to make sure the statutes were enforced as written, not as he personally would have wanted to.
So judicial activism is to be resisted no matter whose activism it is. Judicial activism no matter who launches it is dangerous to our liberties. Why is it the left does not see this? Because it is the only way they can accomplish their policy goals, that is why.
It is a lot easier to convince a five judges than an entire legislative body answerable directly to their constituency. The left does not want to give up their grip on the judicial activists so they fight like mad for judges who will not only continue to rewrite law but rewrite law in their favor.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 10:40 AM
<< Home