[Dog Gone]

The problem with Farah's analysis is that the Republican judges FOLLOWED the law instead of legislating from the bench like he would have preferred.

He is such a shallow freakin' hypocrite.

[k2blader]

Do you think it was right or wrong to kill Terri Schindler?

[HairOfTheDog]

The problem with Farah's analysis is that the Republican judges FOLLOWED the law instead of legislating from the bench like he would have preferred.

That's the problem with much of the FReeper analysis too.

[Cboldt]

The problem with Farah's analysis is that the Republican judges FOLLOWED the law instead of legislating from the bench like he would have preferred.

The problem with Farah's analysis is that it is conclusory. It is void of analytical content. It discusses only the outcome of the case and the political affiliation of the presidents who nominated the involved judges.

The article contains no discussion of the relative merits of the majority and minority opinions. It does not discuss the hurdles involved in reversing a trial court's finding. It does not probe the question of whether or not civil procedure is equipped to handle "tough cases" (e.g., should there be additional procedural safeguards? If so, when?).

There are certainly arguments on both sides of "legislated from the bench." No analyses beyond the opinions themselves, again, other than conclusory or politically motivated ones, have been brought forth as to whether or not the Palm Sunday legislation was constitutional. If it was, there is a question of whether or not the process used by the Federal Court System adhered to legislative intent. One can see pieces of both sides of this argument in the opinions of the courts. Additional argument and analysis will no doubt be offered in time, as the legal scholars dissect the case. Some will side with the dissent, and find that the courts did practice judical activism, by subverting legislative intent. No doubt, that side lost the case, but it's possible to identify a number of cases where the majority got it wrong, given the benefit of hindsight.

[jwalsh07]

"In his dissent, Judge Charles Wilson, a Clinton appointee, said "Congress intended for this case to be reviewed with a fresh set of eyes. Today, we are not called upon to second-guess the wisdom of Congress, but to apply the law it has passed."

Sounds about right I'd say.