Barr on SCOTUS
Bob Barr has penned a promising piece in the Wall Street Journal on the prospect of Supreme Court nominations under the two major party candidates.
The idea of a “living Constitution” long has been popular on the political left. Conservatives routinely dismiss such result-oriented justice, denouncing “judicial activism” and proclaiming their fidelity to “original intent.” However, many Republicans, like Mr. McCain, are just as result-oriented as their Democratic opponents. They only disagree over the result desired.
Judge-made rights are wrong because there is no constitutional warrant behind them. The Constitution leaves most decisions up to the normal political process.
In case any of this sounds familiar, feel free to revisit my previous column on the decay of the Supreme Court. Overly liberal “activist” justices are really not that much different than – to use the words of Congressman Barr – result-oriented conservative judges. A justice truly devoted to the constitution will eventually come to decisions which anger both liberals and conservatives. Barr continues:
However, the Constitution sometimes requires decisions or action by judges – “judicial activism,” if you will – to ensure the country’s fundamental law is followed. Thus, for example, if government improperly restricts free speech – think the McCain-Feingold law’s ban on issue ads – the courts have an obligation to void the law. The same goes for efforts by government to ban firearms ownership, as the Court ruled this term in striking down the District of Columbia gun ban.
Excellent examples. Before you write off Barr as some sort of fringe candidate, give this piece a read and listen to some of the calls he is having with writers. I’m not saying he’s going to be elected president, but he certainly has some positions which both of the dominant two party candidates would do well to look over.