have written an article to place in perspective the argument, recently advanced
repeatedly, that the election of Mitt Romney would spell the end of liberal
judicial activism. That is far from certain.
virtue of being not-Obama must not be confused with virtue. While defeat of Obama should be a basis for
relief, it does not follow that election of Romney should be a cause for
joy. The latter case would assure nothing beyond the avoidance of absolutely
certain judicial disaster. But avoiding a guarantee of what would happen is not
a guarantee that it won't happen anyway.
readers of this blog know, but the public does not, for the last six decades, the
sorry history of harmful liberal judicial activism has largely been a history
of handiwork of Republican
optimistic assurance is no substitute for real vetting -- and fighting!
Credible objections to nominees must be taken very seriously by
constitutionalists rather than set aside just because the president is
Republican president can be relied upon. None! Not ever!
Obama wins, the judicial war will be lost for a generation and possibly
forever; but it does not follow that, if Romney wins, the war will be won. Unless
proponents of fealty to the law and Constitution as written surrender at the
outset, a Romney victory promises only the beginning of a protracted judicial
struggle -- not only against the most venomous leftist character assassins but
also against the inclinations of Republican presidents to seek
"moderation" and also to buy easy peace from the assassins by
compromising judicial integrity and principles.
Labels: Activism, Supreme Court