DesertFox
07-02-2007, 07:45 PM
In its last term, the Supreme Court took tiny steps toward most conservatives’ understanding of what the role of judges in our republic should be. The reaction from liberals has been hysterical. E. J. Dionne Jr. said that the term had proved that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are “activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution” (and that should President Bush nominate another justice in their mold, Senate Democrats should refuse even to hold hearings). Linda Greenhouse reported, “It was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared.”
We wish it were true, but let us have a little reality check. None of the major liberal-activist precedents of the Warren or Burger Courts has been overruled in 30 years. The Supreme Court continues to insist that the First Amendment gives it the power to regulate school administrators’ disciplinary policies, even if it is easing up on those regulations. It continues to micromanage the circumstances in which states may employ the death penalty. Its church-state jurisprudence continues to have no consistent theme other than self-aggrandizement.
More (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTJhYmRhZDU4NGI3NGUxNjUyNzYwYmU3MzVlMzBlN2Q=)
We wish it were true, but let us have a little reality check. None of the major liberal-activist precedents of the Warren or Burger Courts has been overruled in 30 years. The Supreme Court continues to insist that the First Amendment gives it the power to regulate school administrators’ disciplinary policies, even if it is easing up on those regulations. It continues to micromanage the circumstances in which states may employ the death penalty. Its church-state jurisprudence continues to have no consistent theme other than self-aggrandizement.
More (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTJhYmRhZDU4NGI3NGUxNjUyNzYwYmU3MzVlMzBlN2Q=)