While some of today's criticisms of Harriet Miers may be well deserved, they are also shedding light on the kinds of justice many on the far right would prefer - a judge who actually doesn't have any respect for the law, a judge who sees his or her proper role as an enforcer for particular partisan or ideological propsitions, regardless of their basis in law or on any coherent set of legal principles. Moon eviscerates this notion in this post.
Posted by armand at October 3, 2005 01:28 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the CourtsHey, thanks for the juice. More in the same vein -- in fact, I think I go more directly after the activism canard -- here.
Posted by: Moon at October 3, 2005 03:50 PM | PERMALINKHmmm - it's "Zywicki". And his "update" really made me kind of chuckle - that bit on how Roberts only got "muted" support from social conservatives who held their fire on Roberts in the belief that the next pick would be a full-on Inquistion-era reactionary. Again, that shows they aren't interested in the law - they are interested in constantly spreading their gospel to everyone, never shutting up about it, and making sure that it's the law that all Americans are forced to abide by. Results-driven "jurisprudence". I'm starting to think that the right would have been mad about anyone who was nominated today, regardless of their qualifications, if that person didn't have 20 years of making speeches on the evils of gays and abortion (of course those issues don't actually dominate con law - but hey that's a "reality based" observation about con law, so I should know better than to bring it up).
Posted by: Armand at October 3, 2005 07:35 PM | PERMALINK