The Drifters: Why the Supreme Court makes justices more liberal

The Boston Review ^ | January/February 2006 | Jon D. Hanson and Adam Benforado

[joesbucks]

There are errors in conservative logic also. For example, the tax hike by Clinton in the early 90's gave way to expansion in the late 90's. Typical conservative line was that couldn't happen. And you can buy your way out of a deficit. Yet even Rush admitted he was wrong.

Another is if you run a clearly conservative candidate they will always win. I see we have the distinguished gentleman from Illinois Senator Alan Keyes.

[Iwo Jima]

Excellent article!

It says that there are two main bases for one's position on the role of judges (or other things): 1) your personal philosophy (i.e., ideology) and 2) your experiences by which you test your philosophical premises.

Many so-called "conservative" Supreme Court nominees who prior to appointment were not federal court judges (or even any type of judge at all) are likely to disappoint by turning liberal because their philosophy has not been tested by any experience comparable to being a Supreme Court judge.

Bottom line: although nothing is guaranteed, we are much more likely to know what we are getting with a Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Thomas because they were all federal judges prior to being appointed to the Supreme Court. Harriet Miers would have been highly likely to "go liberal" on us because she had had NO judicial experience at all and relatively little trial or appellate experience.

This phenomena is not just confined to Supreme Court judges. Many times people have very firm and long held positions which change when they actually have experience in the area, such as the liberal who gets mugged, the conservative who gets arrested, or the "child care" expert who becomes a parent.