September 13, 2005
The new Supreme Court looms over DemocratsBy Thomas Lifson
Step—by—step, judicial activism, a trend with half a century's momentum behind it, is being rolled back. The confirmation hearings of John Roberts as the nominee for Chief Justice of the United States got off to such a mild start yesterday that one television host referred to it as less interesting than watching paint dry. It appears that, barring surprises, the new Chief Justice will be sworn in fairly soon.
The real battle, we are told, will be over his successor. Depending on the nominee selected, the Democrats will combine a comprehensive demand for confidential documents with a search for minute evidence of scandal in public or private life, in an effort to defeat anyone perceived as other than a liberal activist. President Bush, knowing this well, will undoubtedly nominate someone as squeaky clean as Roberts.
Absent scandal, they will have only judicial philosophy to discuss, and they will lose. The Washington Post wrote
If the Democrats do so, they may energize their activist base, but they will lose. The American public is turning against the notion that judges should be Philosopher Kings, wisely imposing needed policies on a feckless citizenry incapable of democratically choosing their fate. John Roberts skillfully employed the metaphor of an umpire in baseball, and image which has far more resonance, in addition to its faithfulness to the original intent of the Constitution.
After six decades of expansion, the tendency of judges to impose their preferences on society, rather than simply interpret the law as written, may have reached its apogee. Judicial activism, as this writing of law from the bench is known, faces a confluence of forces which promise relief for the principles of Constitutionalism, and for the American people they protect. The trend of judicial activism morphing into judicial tyranny faces a perfect storm. Here are some its key elements.
The American public is paying attention.
Many of these cases are symbolically connected to many people's self—identity, or to institutions to which they have passionate attachments. Others affect the self—interests or perceived safety of ordinary people. The law is not some abstract notion or set of principles to them, but rather an ongoing force affecting their lives. Accordingly, public interest in the composition and conduct of the judiciary at all levels has never been higher.
Abortion policy is an increasing, not a receding irritant.
Public awe of the judiciary is receding.
As never before, the new media are able to focus on instances of judicial misconduct, absurdity, and personal misbehavior among judges. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel has become the number one program on cable news with his regular criticism, by name, of judges who hand down outrageous decisions. Some have even left the bench after his unwelcome attention.
Judicial activism consciously rejects tradition as a guide. This disrespect for the guidelines of the past extends to bricks and mortar. Even when they had to be skyscrapers, courthouses were traditionally designed with the architectural accoutrements of Greek and Roman temples, and judges wore the robes of high priests in order to inspire awe, and therefore passive acceptance of authority. More recent trends in courthouse architecture have substituted the bland features of modernism and postmodernism, which fail to inspire even affection, much less awe. The inhabitants of buildings like the new wave of federal courthouses send the implicit signal that they are more kin to the corporate bureaucrats in adjacent office buildings than they are to the god—like seers and priests of classical antiquity.
Judges and justices are increasingly seen as flawed human beings, rather than as principle—driven protectors of an impartial system. The very nature of judicial activism exposes itself to this perception. George Neumayr cuts to the chase on this point:
If the law represents nothing more than the will of whoever has the most audacity to hijack it, won't it occur to the American people at some point that they too can join in the nihilistic jostling? What if the people thought, "the law is just the will of the strongest," and marched on courthouses and threw lawless judges out on the street? What appeal could these judges make to them —— "You must follow the laws that we don't"?
Nobody sane thinks it is a good thing that judges are targeted for violence. But Chicago and Atlanta have both seen outrageous instances of criminals physically and violently expressing contempt for the judiciary in the past few weeks. The unthinkable is clearly becoming more thinkable, at least for the most deranged segment of the population — precisely the group which finds itself in closest contact with the lower levels of the judiciary. They obscenely demonstrate that judges are, indeed, merely mortal, in the most literal sense.
The Supreme Court is at a turning point.
Today's Supreme Court inevitably faces substantial changes in its membership. While appointments to the Court have always been of public interest, today's environment makes both the stakes and the visibility of the next few appointments greater than ever before. If President Bush is able to appoint two or three new justices to the Court, including a new Chief Justice, there is the possibility of the Court signaling a retreat from activism, and legitimizing a return to what has been called 'originalism,' the modest belief that the writers of law and the framers of the Constitution should be merely interpreted according to the actual words they wrote, not redefined and redirected by inhabitants of the judiciary.
Powerful voices advocate a return to originalism.
Mark Levin, WABC radio talk show host and president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, has written an excellent new bestseller, Men in Black, written for a lay audience, denouncing judicial activism, and outlining practical steps to reverse its course. I purchased my copy at the Costco store serving ultra—liberal Berkeley, indicating the widespread interest in his book, even in the bluest of blue state locales.
The blogopshere, with many blogs produced by law professors, lawyers, and others interested in the issue of legal activism, is another collective voice debating the topic, one which bypasses the former monopoly held by liberal media organs, which mostly supported activism with great enthusiasm.
The Republican Senate majority will break filibusters of judicial nominees.
The Democrats' arguments will not prevail in the public arena.
If and when Democrats force the issue by obstruction of Senate business, they will look ridiculous, continuing a recent self—destructive trend. The fact that Minority Leader Reid is about as un—dynamic and unappealing a spokesman as they could select only amplifies their inability to persuade anyone but loyalists.
There is thus every prospect that substantial changes in the membership of the Supreme Court will take place. With a new Chief Justice John Roberts (by all accounts a man well—liked by even those who disagree with him) to lead them, the new Supreme Court will signal a new era in the judiciary. While it will take time for these changes to filter down to state and local jurisdictions, and many obstacles remain, it is quite possible that future historians will observe that 2005 marked the zenith of judicial activism.
[Substantial portions of this article appeared earlier, at a time when our readership was a fraction of its current level.]
Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.