Edward Lazarus breaks the love-fest and lays out exactly what was wrong with O'Conner on the bench. In short? It's the same thing that liberals are now praising her for. Her "unpredictable nature." That someone can find a judge with so much potential for swaying one way or the other to be a good judge just reflects how desperate the left is to avoid having a conservative put in her place. They'd rather take someone they can't count on all the time over someone they know will never agree with their interpretation.
But her style was not good. As Lazarus points out, it was subjectivism run amok and it's not what the SCOTUS is supposed to be about. Her decisions were so random, not as part of some grand design to be moderate, but because she was an awful judge who couldn't swallow the fact that the Constitution did not work as she thought it should. And that is why the left loves O'Conner, because they likewise love to praise the Constitution...until they disagree with it. In which case, it clearly needs to be "re-interpreted." President Bush should certainly entertain the Democrats here. But the decision should be his and he should boldly nominate someone who will actually work to uphold the Constitution, even when they disagree with it. If he gives in, and does what the Democrats ask, do you really believe that they would do the same when they hold the Presidency? Neither do I.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder