Update to CBS Post
Don’t miss the update to the post below about CBS’s distortion of Ken Starr’s views. It’s a pretty convincing rebuttal of the Mickey Kaus theory that CBS reporter Gloria Borger managed to “wrench” the “radical, radical” comment into something approximating its proper context.
This is the key non-sequitur/obfuscation of the whole piece that gives CBS the out. I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Are we supposed to appoint judges that DON’T want to rule on these issues? No thinking person on the right or left wants to eliminate judicial review, it’s HOW the judicial review is done that is the question. But this stupid phrase allows CBS to say: “See, we were talking about judicial philosophy before the first Starr quote”, even though no one hearing this segment understands that that is what the Starr is discussing
JFH (d1e47f) — 5/13/2005 @ 11:27 pmHmmm… I seem to understand this differently. I would read it as a rhetorical question put forward by concerned traditionalists [ as opposed to activists] that justices are NOT to make NEW rules on matters like abortion to gay marriage, for such matters are properly within the province of the legislatures. It is something so simple and basic to the separation of powers, that, it is self evidence that judges are not appointed for making new rules on subjects from abortion to gay marriage.
If we visit Justice Robert Young , Michigan Supreme Court, he has put it more elegantly as
Yi-Ling (ba61aa) — 5/14/2005 @ 8:50 amI meant to link this http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjr_2.htm in above post.
Yi-Ling (ba61aa) — 5/14/2005 @ 8:51 amI believe judicial review is a different cup of tea, when talking of judicial activism.
Yi-Ling (ba61aa) — 5/14/2005 @ 8:55 am