strict constructionism, liberal style
By Diogenes ( articles ) | Jul 11, 2005
The Washington Post, offering its ever-so-friendly editorial advice about appointments to the US Supreme Court, informs President Bush that "a nominee who strongly believes in the stability of precedent-- the legal principle of stare decisis-- is far more likely to garner broad support than a nominee who generally regards past decisions as ripe for overturning."
But while they must support prior Supreme Court rulings (read: Roe v. Wade), qualified Supreme Court nominees need not worry too much about the text of the Constitution:
Moreover, insisting on constitutional rulings supported by the document's text, history and structure need not mean insisting on cramped or anachronistic treatment of law that was written in general terms to remain relevant to a changing society.
Do you see the elegant beauty of the liberal position? The meaning of the Constitution can be stretched, bent, supplemented, or ignored by jurists seeking change. But once the Supreme Court has discerned, discovered, or invented a new meaning in the Constitution, the Court's ruling must be upheld.
Thus the Court, not the Constitution, is the real ultimate law of the land. Now you know why liberals will fight to the finish to maintain control of the Supreme Court-- and why a "compromise" candidate, who signals his willingness to accept established precedents (read: Roe v. Wade), would be a catastrophic loss for anyone interested in preserving American constitutional rule.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!