Judicial restraint hypocrisy

With the hearings under way on Roberts, all the talk is of judicial restraint vs. judicial activism, of states' rights vs. "heavy-handed government". Hypocrisy has become accepted truth. The fact that liberals have allowed the debate to be framed that way just demonstrates how brain-dead they are. As conservative judges have weighed in against medical marijuana, the right to die, and personal privacy, and in favour of federal police power, one thing becomes abundantly clear, if it wasn't obvious already: they like getting government off our backs only when it suits them. The reality is that you can predict most judges, not based on their adherence to abstract principles of jurisprudence, but based on who is standing before them.

If the people in front of the bench are long-hairs, drug users, single moms, elderly, sick, gay, or black, you can almost bet they will feel the full weight of the system come down on their heads. By the way, the same can be said of liberal judges: if the people in front of the bench are corporate executives, white, rich or powerful, they will feel the wrath of the system come down on THEIR heads, no matter how ethical they are, or what exemplary lives they have led. (To liberals, there is no distinction between the entrepreneur who risked everything to build a company, and the thieves at Enron.) The difference is that liberals have allowed themselves to be tarred as activists, while dangerous bullies like Scalia get away with murder because they are "strict constructionists". Only when it suits them, of course.