April 13, 2005

"The damage to the cause of constitutionalism."

Here's a National Review editorial that disapproves of some of the recent excess in criticizing the judiciary, bemoans the way it plays into the hands of those who make too much of judicial independence, and expresses hope that Congress can find some reasonable ways to check the judiciary. Most interesting paragraph:
President Bush and Vice President Cheney have felt it necessary to distance themselves from DeLay’s remarks, and Cornyn has issued clarifications and apologies. But the damage to the cause of constitutionalism, as conservatives understand it, had already been done. It is now that much easier for liberals to dismiss any attempt to assert a role for the political branches in restraining judicial excess — even the Republican demand that Bush’s judicial nominees receive an up-or-down vote — as a threat to “judicial independence.” And since many liberals have so grandiose a view of the judicial role that even strong criticism of judicial decisions counts as such a threat, they were already so inclined.

1 comment:

twwren said...

What I find interesting, but not surprising, is what the editorial does not criticize: their stance in the Shiavo case that an activist judiciary is okay if the ends justify the means.