Free the da$$hole 50 and release Bush's judicial appointments NOW, Leahy!:
What the liberals fear is a conservative judicial philosophy called originalism, which holds that judges must base their rulings on the Constitutions text and structure, as the Framers understood it, and they must interpret statutes to mean what they say. Very different from the activist and creative jurisprudence that has prevailed for the last half-century, this approach, which was the Framers accepted view of judging, would never have permitted the Courts expansive policymaking role that produced some of the Lefts most cherished victories. An originalist Court could even overturn some of those victories as unanchored in the Constitution.Regardless of your view of the specific policies at issue, it is vital to Americas future that Bush win this battle for the courts: the Supreme Courts politicized role in recent decades is corroding the self-government at the heart of American constitutionalism. In a democracy, voters, not unelected judges, decide the momentous questions. When the Supreme Court forces its policy preferences on the American people without the clear warrant of a constitutional text, as has happened often in the last 50 years, it is acting more as an anti-democratic Caesar than as the impartial referee its supposed to be, in Justice Scalias view. Moreover, by politicizing constitutional law, the Court has weakened the rule of law that is the bedrock of our constitutional form of government. As Justice Thomas notes, if law is just politics, then there are no courts at all, only legislatures, and no Constitution or law at all, only opinion polls. Why then would you need unelected judges to perform the same function as an elected congress?
...it is vital to Americas future that Bush win this battle for the courts: the Supreme Courts politicized role in recent decades is corroding the self-government at the heart of American constitutionalism.
Indeed.
There are few things that are more important for our republic, long-term.
EV