Tuesday, April 20, 2010

How the Right has re-defined "judicial restraint" to mean "judicial activism against law we don't like."

A great piece on how the Right has re-defined "judicial restraint" to mean "judicial activism against law we don't like."

[D]uring the Warren era, activism usually meant asking the Supreme Court to bring a few state outliers into line with a national consensus—on racial discrimination, for example. By contrast, Roberts Court-era conservatives are urging unelected judges to strike down landmark federal laws that passed over their objections, at least some of which command broad national support.

No comments: