If Miers had said, that the failure to honestly discuss hard issues, and make a decision after discussing and voting on them, leaves a vacuum, then however much we might decry it, given the vacuum, judges tend to have this irresistible impulse to fill it (whereas an intelligently debated and decided decision might give them pause before abusing their power), with their own values often, rather than those of the polity in general, then I would agree with you.
But she did not say that. She just didn't. She said, that if we don't do what is needed to be done, about inequality, segregation, housing, progressive taxation, funding for school districts, then the courts will do what we should have done, to "solve" the unmet business of the public square.
You might not like it, but that is a fair reading of her comments. It really is.
Torie, I respectfully disagree.. That is precisely what she is saying, only not as nearly so eloquently.. :)
But she did not say that. She just didn't. She said, that if we don't do what is needed to be done, about inequality, segregation, housing, progressive taxation, funding for school districts, then the courts will do what we should have done, to "solve" the unmet business of the public square.Bump -- exactly. Nowhere in this speech does she state that the courts have no authority to craft solutions for society's real or percieved ills. She said that it's preferable for the legislature to do it, but if they won't, then the courts must, for the good of society.