-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Biden rules
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:38:27 -0700
From: David Barrett <email@example.com>
To: Power Line <firstname.lastname@example.org>
If possible, please clarify the following questions:
1) What is "judicial activism"?
2) Would you endorse a "judicial activist" for the Supreme Court?
3) Is it possible to be a "solid liberal" or "solid conservative" judge
without simultaneously being a "liberal/conservative activist judge"?
My confusion is that one one hand, everyone seems to be against judicial
activism. But on the other hand, everyone seems to be in favor of
having "their guy" on the Supreme Court. Isn't this a direct contradiction?
It seems to me that the *only* way you fight against "judicial activism"
is to explicitly denounce any judge who is "solid" in any ideological
Naturally, everyone has baises -- and judges are human. But there's an
enormous difference between someone who votes 60/40 conservative, and
90/10 conservative, wouldn't you agree? And the nearer you are to the
90/10 side, the more accurate the label is "judicial activism", correct?
So with this in mind, how can we so casually call for/against a
political political/ideological bias in the judges we recommend, while
simultaneously lambast the the political/ideological bias of the judges
who are currently seated?
If you could address this point in one of your posts, I'd greatly
appreciate it. Thanks!