Monday, September 26, 2005

The Post Bats .500

An editorial in the Post this morning is, in light of its previous support of John Roberts, confusing.

Yes, the argument for diversity on the Court is laudable, but how would the MSM feel if Bush picked an African-American woman like Janice Rogers Brown? They would be apoplectic. Because that is not the kind of diversity they mean; they are talking about what they consider ideological diversity, by which they mean "moderate" which is another way of saying "liberal".

Their accusation of Justice Thomas being the most "radical" member of the Court is laughable. What about Justices that look to the opinion and laws of foreign countries to help guide their interpretation of the United States Constitution? Isn't eviscerating the takings clause and allowing the indiscriminate use of eminent domain radical?

The Post, like many on the Left, have a reverence for stare decisis that is... convenient. Yes, such a philosophy should guide all nine Justices but if it required absolute fealty, would we ever have had Brown? Would the Post care to defend such respect for precedent in such a case?

The disheartening fact is that for many stare decisis means "upholding Roe" and little else. Certain residents of Connecticut may beg to differ.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home