David Lat gets antsy when an interview with Justice Breyer is insufficiently confessional. Why can't he be more like Justice Scalia (or Judge Posner or Judge Kozinski)? Is there some reason the conservative judicial stars are more fun? Do liberals always have to demonstrate their circumspection?
UPDATE: David tries to answer my questions, but the fact that he's reduced to bringing up Justice Douglas concedes the point. They don't make liberal Justices like that any more. We still have liberal Justices, but we no longer have liberal Justices who express their liberalism with deeply felt passion. The attacks on liberal activism have left a deep mark, and the liberals that we do have adopt a much cooler, more impersonal pose.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
३ टिप्पण्या:
Actually, David Souter can be very witty. He has a very wry sense of humor.
Part of liberalism is now never offending any non-traditional group or individual. Another part is denying you're a liberal. This makes for boring speeches.
That said, I love the Scalia/Breyer show and I think Breyer is the most thoughtful liberal on the Court and the one trying hardest to find a legitimate reason for illigitimate decsions.
Breyer and O’Conner were on Charlie Rose the other night with the latest “o-my –god, I cant believe people are upset over our opinions, This is a threat to judicial independence!” line of defense to judicial activism.
Breyer has this classic of his, it’s a seven point (or is it six) format for judging/making legal opinions. The first five could come from Scalia, original intent, textualism, precedent, ect… the last two however are so broad …effects & outcomes (or something) as to eviscerate any meaning from the first five.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा