Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boiling the Frog
NRO ^ | November 01, 2005 | Edward Whelan

Posted on 11/01/2005 10:46:58 AM PST by neverdem

E-mail Author

Author Archive

Send

to a Friend

Version

8:23 a.m.

Boiling the Frog

A slapdash and highly partisan effort.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This piece appears in the October 24, 2005, issue of National Review.

From all appearances, Cass Sunstein's latest book, Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America, must have been rushed into print to capitalize on potential book buyers' attention to the initial Supreme Court vacancy that developed this past summer. Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is by all accounts a brilliant legal scholar. But Radicals in Robes is a slapdash and highly partisan effort that does not do justice to his reputation.

It would be tempting to ridicule at length Sunstein's assertion that the courts "have already gone so far in the directions that conservatives prefer"; his parade of potential right-wing horribles; his contrived "value-neutral definition" of judicial activism; and his many straw-man arguments, such as his claim that "those who believe that regulatory takings are a violation of the Fifth Amendment" would have difficulty explaining "why a progressive income tax . . . is constitutionally acceptable." (Has he not noticed the Sixteenth Amendment?) Not to mention the countless gaffes, such as his reference to "Justice William

Kennedy."

But a focus on these superficial flaws would divert attention from the deeper defects in Sunstein's underlying argument.

Sunstein sets out to "describe the four approaches that have long dominated constitutional debates." He labels these four approaches "perfectionism," "fundamentalism," "majoritarianism," and "minimalism." Focusing especially on how fundamentalism and minimalism apply to various hot-button questions of the day, he argues that fundamentalism "would endanger both our rights and our democratic institutions" and instead promotes minimalism as "best" for "the contemporary United States."

The labels that Sunstein attaches to his four approaches are confusing and tendentious. Perfectionists, it turns out, "want to make the Constitution the best that it can be" by reading its text "in a way that reflects their own deepest beliefs." Perfectionism, in other words, is an alternative euphemism for the make-believe jurisprudence that invokes the "living Constitution." Yes, the problem with Justice Brennan was that he was just too much of a perfectionist. To his credit, Sunstein rejects perfectionism and criticizes Roe v. Wade as "exemplifying perfectionism at its most extreme."

In case you hadn't guessed, "fundamentalism" is Sunstein's pejorative label for originalism, the principle that the various provisions of the Constitution must be interpreted in accordance with their original meaning at the time they were ratified. Sunstein's only reason for relabeling originalism is to load it with the onerous baggage that religious fundamentalism carries with his target audience.

Sunstein doesn't recognize that what he calls majoritarianism isn't a separate approach at all. Rather, it merely provides a high burden of judicial proof that would apply within an originalist (or other) framework. As Sunstein puts it, "Unless the Constitution has been plainly violated, majoritarians believe that the courts should defer to the judgments of elected representatives." Some decisional framework outside majoritarianism is needed to determine whether "the Constitution has been plainly violated."

What is minimalism, the approach Sunstein embraces? Minimalists "favor shallow rulings over deep ones, in the sense that they seek to avoid taking stands on the biggest and most contested questions of constitutional law." They "attempt to reach incompletely theorized agreements [Sunstein's emphasis] in which the most fundamental questions are left undecided." They "celebrate the system of precedent in this spirit." Minimalists can be liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or conservatives like Sandra Day O'Connor. They are "cautious by nature" and would "nudge" rather than shake "the law toward the views of those who ratified the relevant provision of the Constitution." As an example of minimalism in practice, Sunstein says that minimalists oppose overturning Roe: Although they "are far from sure that Roe was right," they "are willing to accept it, not in spite of but because of their essential conservatism."

Sunstein's account of minimalism is a jumble. If minimalists really aim to "nudge the law toward the views of those who ratified the relevant provision of the Constitution," then they would be originalists in principle and gradualists in their tactics. But Sunstein plainly does not regard minimalism as a gradualist version of originalism, and neither Ginsburg nor O'Connor could be classed as a minimalist if he did. For all of its claimed modesty, what respect does minimalism accord the right of American citizens to resolve issues through the democratic process if it is unwilling to overturn wrong, and judicially activist, decisions like Roe?

The incoherence of Sunstein's account and the oddity of a constitutional theorist's celebration of "incompletely theorized agreements" suggest that something else underlies Sunstein's advocacy of minimalism. That "something else" is easy to discern and has two aspects. First, Sunstein advocates minimalism here and now ("for the contemporary United States") because he is, by and large, content with the precedents in place and sees minimalism as the best defense of those precedents against originalist overturning. Second, Sunstein in fact regards minimalism, over the long run, as the tactically prudent, gradualist path to a liberal "perfectionist" rewriting of the Constitution. Thus, for example, he doesn't want the Supreme Court to impose same-sex marriage "at this early stage" because it would be better if the courts would "act as catalysts" on gay rights.

Sunstein's minimalism, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg's, is better described as boil-the-frog gradualism. We American citizens are like the frog in the pot of water on the stove. If the Court turns up the heat — that is, imposes the Left's agenda — too suddenly, we'll jump out. But if it does so gradually, we'll sit there in blissful ignorance until it's too late.

Sunstein's attack on the legitimacy of originalism is even more disturbing. Assume, Sunstein says, that the Framers were committed to originalism. Does it follow that we must be originalists? No, he says, for it "is up to us to decide whether to accept" originalism. Why, after all, "should we be governed by people long dead?"

Sunstein's position has radical anarchistic implications that he hastens to disguise. He claims that he is not arguing that the Constitution itself should not be taken as binding, but he can argue only that we ought to take it as binding "because it is good to take it as binding." But why can't we instead pick and choose the parts of the Constitution that we think would be good and disregard the others? Why, indeed, can't each of us reject the legitimacy of any law that we don't like and to which we personally did not consent? Sunstein is so desperate to combat originalism that he would destroy the law itself in the process.

Sunstein's "political choice" to reject originalism rests on his assertion that "it would lead to intolerable consequences." Sunstein's real bone of contention is with the free play that originalism would give to the democratic process. Perhaps he is right that the operation of representative government within the bounds established by the Constitution might yield some very bad results. Alas, men are not angels. But our obligation as citizens is to respect the Constitution we have (or to seek to amend it) and to work responsibly through the democratic process to promote our own understandings of just public policy.

Sunstein's book is not devoid of merit. On a broad range of issues, he presents a serious challenge to the claim by some conservatives that originalism yields the legal position they advocate. It is, of course, an incidental virtue of originalism that it provides an objective standard for decision-making and therefore makes it possible to distinguish good originalism from bad originalism.

I also believe that a high standard of judicial proof, which Sunstein praises in his discussion of majoritarianism, should properly apply to originalist decision-making. If the Court is going to override the political process, it ought to do so only based on a convincing demonstration that the Constitution so requires, not on its mere best guess as to original meaning.

At bottom, though, nudging is not judging; and Sunstein fails to make a coherent case for minimalism over originalism.

Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and is a regular contributor to NRO's "Bench Memos" blog on judicial nominations.


 

 
http://www.nationalreview.com/whelan/whelan200511010823.asp
     



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: bookreview; casssunstein; conservatism; liberalism; originalism; scotus

1 posted on 11/01/2005 10:46:59 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Sunstein says, that the Framers were committed to originalism. Does it follow that we must be originalists? No, he says, for it "is up to us to decide whether to accept" originalism. Why, after all, "should we be governed by people long dead?"

Now that statement boils my butt, not a frog.

2 posted on 11/01/2005 10:51:10 AM PST by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sounds like it's pretty easy to sum up Sunstein: The only good judge is a leftist judge.


3 posted on 11/01/2005 10:52:29 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America

Any supposedly serious book about Courts that starts out with such phony, meaningless and unnuanced pejoratives cannot be worth reading.

4 posted on 11/01/2005 10:54:26 AM PST by Maceman (Fake but accurate -- and now double-sourced)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

""Sunstein says, that the Framers were committed to originalism. Does it follow that we must be originalists? No, he says, for it "is up to us to decide whether to accept" originalism. Why, after all, "should we be governed by people long dead?""

I ask the same question, "why should we be governed by a political party that is long dead?"


5 posted on 11/01/2005 11:02:20 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Why, after all, "should we be governed by people long dead?"

By that line of reasoning, the entire United States of America should absolved because it was founded by men long dead.

6 posted on 11/01/2005 11:08:28 AM PST by Old Seadog (Inside every old person is a young person saying "WTF happened?".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
You know, there is a lot of back-and-forth between the left and Right about the Constitution. One topic that never seems to get resolved is that "It was written 200+ years ago, things are different now, we need to be able to adapt."

My take on this is that our Constitution is, simply, a procedure that tells the governement how it is to operate. It really is a beautifully written document. So, in the past 200 years, I'd have to agree, things have changed. The real sticky part is that no one seems to realize that the Constitution has within it, the mechanism for change.

For example, if we as a nation decide that we can no longer afford to have an armed populace, then we need to amend the Constitution to give the Gov't power to remove the guns from society.

Just opting to begin ignoring or 'interpreting' parts to get your desired result is to declare ALL portions null and void. Why adhere to any when some are ignored?

I wish Judge Roberts had slapped Shumer with "My job as Justice is to read and apply the Constitution. If you don't like the way it is written, then you do YOUR job and change it."

7 posted on 11/01/2005 11:32:27 AM PST by RoadGumby (Let your fear be as a monkey, hiding in a pinata)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Aged Hippies in Ties: Why Extreme Left-Wing Academics Are Wrong For America


8 posted on 11/01/2005 11:33:33 AM PST by George Smiley (This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
For example, if we as a nation decide that we can no longer afford to have an armed populace, then we need to amend the Constitution to give the Gov't power to remove the guns from society.

You'd start the mother of all legal debates.

That is, assuming that the soap box was the only box used under those circumstances.

9 posted on 11/01/2005 11:35:25 AM PST by George Smiley (This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
"I ask the same question, "why should we be governed by a political party that is long dead?"

Your kidding right? So we should abandon the PRICIPLES put into place in the Constitution because the authors are dead? The Constitution was written to places boundries of the government, not laws agisnt the people. That is the orginal intent. UUUg. I cant beieve I resonded to this post, time to take a tylenol. I need to stop beating my head on the desk when I read something this goofy.

10 posted on 11/01/2005 12:07:22 PM PST by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

"Your kidding right?"

I meant the RATS governing. Their party is long dead since t he libs took it over.

Does that help your headache at all skippy?


11 posted on 11/01/2005 12:31:16 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Sorry about the misunderstanding, my bad, I appologize.


12 posted on 11/01/2005 6:08:28 PM PST by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

I am also having one of those days. Getting abused by the spelling police.


13 posted on 11/01/2005 6:12:47 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

They claim that Bush can't nominate any conservative judges, yet they have no problem demanding that only liberal commie judges be put in place. What is wrong with this logic?????


14 posted on 11/01/2005 6:15:38 PM PST by ladyinred ("Progressive" = code word for Communist/Nazi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bush doesn't want originalism. If it happened, half his domestic policy wouild be declared unconstitutional.


15 posted on 11/01/2005 6:16:55 PM PST by bigsigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigsigh

Can you imagine if the Federal Gov't was actually limited by what the Constitution allows? Conservatives and Liberals alike would be foaming at the mouth.


16 posted on 11/01/2005 6:19:02 PM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Old Seadog
By that line of reasoning, the entire United States of America should absolved because it was founded by men long dead.

Indeed! Along with all of its long-standing institutions.

17 posted on 11/01/2005 7:28:59 PM PST by FierceDraka (The Democratic Party - Aiding and Abetting The Enemies of America Since 1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson