Our nation's capital always has been a partisan place, but never more so than today. Republicans and Democrats stridently vie for power apparently as little more than an end in itself. Special-interest groups across the political spectrum engage in vicious battle with the sole operational principle that the ends justify the means. Partisan and ideological rancor makes accomplishing anything difficult— which is often a good thing, considering the sorts of things that Washington, D.C., produces. Nonetheless, the infighting makes for a particularly nasty environment.
And yet, many Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, no matter how far apart they are on other issues, converge on one premise: that judicial activism is rampant and threatens to wreck our country. Although attacks on judicial activism date back nearly 200 years, what is unprecedented is the shared sense of out- rage across the ideological spectrum. “What makes the current wave of judge-bashing unusual," remarks George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen, “is that virulently personal attacks now come from both sides of the political spectrum.”1
It really is quite remarkable. In the recent U.S. Supreme Court confirmation battles, judicial activism was the major rallying cry on both sides of the partisan and ideological divides. Indeed, both sides even have written books about the plague of judicial activism and how bad it is for America. You'd think that liberal and conservative critics of judicial activism were about to bury the hatchet and become the best of friends, united against the common foe.
But the consensus dissipates rapidly once the common demon is identified. For conservatives, the recent confirmation battles were about ending liberal judicial activism. And for liberals, they were about preventing a conservative judicial revolution.
Both sides' arguments contain a kernel of truth. As conservatives argue, courts have indeed strayed beyond legitimate boundaries of
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: David's Hammer: The Case for an Activist Judiciary. Contributors: Clint Bolick - Author. Publisher: Cato Institute. Place of publication: Washington, DC. Publication year: 2007. Page number: 19.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.