More Nonsense about "constructionism"

Once again, as we consider a Supreme Court nominee, the debate has been limited to very narrow ground. The cultural conservatives have framed the debate on their terms. They have succeeded in claiming minimalism as their own, even though what they really want is their own activist judges on the bench. Of course, as usual, the "opposition" are too brain dead to call them on it. For that alone, even if they are suspicious of Miers, the conservatives have won.

A true minimalist will respect state's rights on matters such as right-to-die, medical marijuana, gay unions, and other aspects of personal behavior. It is clear, however, that the regressive wing of the Republican base actually wants judges who will run roughshod over all of their principles in order to punish people of whom they disapprove.

By pretending they care about issues of principle (constructionist vs. "legislating from the bench", minimalist vs. intrusive, pro-states' rights vs. anti, pro individual vs. anti), the regressives successfully disguise the truth: they want judges who will rule in favor of people and things they like, and against people and things they don't like. It's that simple.

If you need evidence for this statement, we got it today. George Bush was emphatic: there is no litmus test on any issue, such as abortion. His only concern, he says, is that the judge is a constructionist. He says he didn't even ask Ms. Miers about abortion. Guess what? The religious right is indignant! Some of them openly say they've been betrayed!

So it is there for all to see. They don't care about abstract legal principles. They just want their way. We can only hope Bush was telling the truth, for once.