Stuart Taylor's National Journal essay, "What Kind of Justice" makes clear just how difficult it is to make any categorical statements about what constitutes "judicial activism", and how mistaken it would be to presume that conservative justices are less likely to practice it than are more liberal ones. He notes also that the oft-stated reverence of some liberal judges for Supreme Court precedent sometimes goes out the window when it conflicts with their viewpoint of the moment.
All this and much more, in the context of the question of what kind of justice John Roberts is likely to be if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court. In short, it is a balanced look at a complicated topic, what Taylor refers to as "the glorious messiness of our constitutional democracy". It stood out to me amid the ocean of words being written on the Roberts nomination as one which manages to make a complex topic understandable for those of us who aren't lawyers or constitutional scholars, and does so without advancing a political agenda. Definitely worth your time to read it all.
(via RCP)
Posted by dan at July 23, 2005 06:13 PM | TrackBack