Conservatives, Judges and Schiavo

From the New York Times:

Conservatives, already disdainful of the way judges have handled subjects like same-sex marriage and abortion, say the court treatment of the Schiavo case illustrates a judiciary that is willing to ignore the will of the public and elected officials.

It's not the court's job to interpret the will of the people. It's the court's job to interpret the law. They did not talk to conservatives in this article, they talked to authoritarians with a conservative bent.

Law Professor Ann Althouse responds:

What Judge Whittemore did is very dramatic proof of the judiciary's deep commitment to the rule of law and its firm resistance to political pressure and emotional entreaties.
And what do “conservatives” really think of judges? Do they want them—as the third paragraph in that block quote says—not “to ignore the will of the public and elected officials?” I thought good conservatives wanted judges to set aside political preferences and faithfully follow the dictates of the law. The criticism of “activist” judges is that they abuse the law by making it into what they prefer politically, but the solution isn't that they should do more of what other people prefer politically. It's that they ought to do what the law requires.

Some have said that the Republicans will lose if Schiavo dies. I think they have already lost by stumbling around and destroying their coalition with strict constructionists. “Right to life” could have been approached much more cleanly than this law.

Josh Poulson

Posted Wednesday, Mar 23 2005 06:40 AM

Adjacent entries


« “The Era of Big Government Is Over”
DEA Agent Redux »





To track back to this entry, ping this URL:

There are no trackbacks on this entry.


There is one comment on this entry.

You're right - - the courts can't make judgments outside of the law - - yet so many think they should do just that in this particular case.

Political lines have been drawn in the sand and with Congress, the Senate and our President having stepped in there has now been a precedent set for other cases. Yes, the polticians stated this was a rare instance, but how can they now deny listening to the pleads of other families? Will those politicians look other families in the eye and say, "well your family isn't as important" - - they can't do that because it would be political suicide.

I could discuss this issue to no end, but find I'm rambling more than not - - so I'll close for now ;)

Uptown Girl

Posted Saturday, Mar 26 2005 09:41 AM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)



Affiliate advertising

Basecamp project management and collaboration

Backpack: Get Organized and Collaborate