Editorial Writers Advise Supreme Court
The conservative U.S. Supreme Court appears to be driven by policy judgments rather than a principled approach to judging, the New York Times asserts in an editorial.
The newspaper says Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. offered “fine sound bites” about having no agenda during his confirmation hearings, but he quickly allied with the conservative bloc to issue a series of controversial 5-4 decisions.
“The Roberts bloc has not adhered to any principled theory of judging,” the newspaper says. “Its members are not reluctant to strike down laws passed by Congress, as critics of ‘judicial activism’ are supposed to be, or reluctant to overturn the court’s precedents. The best predictor of how they will vote is to ask: What outcome would a conservative Republican favor as a matter of policy?”
A commentary published in the Wall Street Journal (sub. req.) suggests that the proper approach to judging is “originalism,” which holds that constitutional cases should be decided in a way that is faithful to the Constitution as written and understood at the time of its adoption.
The commentary by Northwestern law professor Steven Calabresi says originalists are not afraid to strike down precedent or laws if they conflict with the original meaning of the Constitution.
He says originalism should figure into the public debate as new vacancies occur on the court. He thinks the next president could get to nominate a handful of new justices, since six members of the court will be over age 70 by the end of January 2009 and may consider retirement.
The court opens its new term today.
