“Umpires don’t make the rules they apply them.” Though he concludes that “this is as it should be” in a democracy, his criticisms of individual justices suggest he is not a big fan of the change.įor example, while he praises Roberts’ intellect and ability, he pointedly dismisses his suggestion during confirmation hearings that he favors a philosophy of restraint. Toobin, a veteran court analyst for The New Yorker magazine and CNN, says this represents the increasing influence of the nation’s ideological politics on the court. Secondly, for all the GOP’s advocacy of judicial restraint and its criticism of judges who legislate from the bench, the Republican-appointed majority represents what the author terms “a new kind of judicial activism” that threatens long-established rulings in crucial areas such as abortion and affirmative action. One is that, at the very time the Republican Party’s four-decade ascendancy shows signs of abating, President Bush’s appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have enabled conservatives to achieve their long-sought goal of a firm court majority. Two political ironies underscore Jeffrey Toobin’s interesting new account of how personnel changes have changed the Supreme Court over the past two decades.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |