Everyone talks about (and bemoans) judicial activism, but few realize, as Robert McCloskey shows in The American Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court has historically followed the political winds. As FDR put it while trying to pack the Court in 1937, the American people expect the unelected third branch of government to fall in line behind the elected other two. Today, this ironic notion is given life by Anthony Kennedy, about whom law professor Michael Klarman observes, "Any court on which [he] is the median voter will never do anything to provoke dramatic backlashes, because Justice Kennedy has his finger on the pulse of Middle America."
Since 1937, the Supreme Court has comprised nine justices. But as Jean Edward Smith argues, "there is nothing sacrosanct" about the number nine. To the contrary, "Roosevelt’s 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike," including Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant. Note: I'm blogging Smith's op-ed not because I condone court-packing, which politicizes and destabilizes the law, but because of its interesting history.
Ward Churchill, aka Chief Lies-alot, is unrepentant. Of his "little Eichmanns" essay, he declares, "The only thing I regret is that I didn't take a harder line." Note: Churchill was fired not for this essay, which academic freedom protects, but for academic fraud in his "scholarly" work.
Who says reporters have to be poor? Salaries for top journalists at the Atlantic range as high as $350,000.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The Daily Digest
Monday, May 21, 2007
What Constitutes "Amnesty"? Or, for That Matter, "Judicial Activism"?
Within the past year or so, two terms have became verboten within the conservative lexicon: "judicial activism" and "amnesty." Both are so facile and, by now, shopworn, they have lost objective meaning and instead serve as mears to hurl at one's opponents.
So, in order to restore semantic sanity to the debates about the role of the judiciary and about immigration reform, let's try to unravel some definitions.
"Judicial activism" occurs when the judiciary overturns a law that enjoys overwhelming public support. Hence the phrase "legislating from the bench."
"Amnesty" is not automatically synonymous with earned citizenship. Instead, the operative question is how long an illegal must wait for legalized status.
If, after paying back taxes, fees and satisfying other conditions (like fluency in English, gainful employment and a clean criminal record), such status is conferred immediately, then that seems like amnesty. If such status must be earned over time, as with the 1986 bill that granted permanent residency after 18 months and citizenship after another five years, then I think invoking the scarlet noun minimizes the hardships associated with waiting.
For those who disagree—like Senator DeMint, who recently proclaimed, "I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty"—I'd ask you to describe a solution, short of deporting all illegals, which is not amnesty?
By all means, I'm no expert on these subjects; this is just my admittedly uninformed opinion. What do you think?
Update (6/16/07): My litmus test for the "amnesty" label are the requirements for legalization. But as Time reporter Nathan Thornburgh observes, the more common test is legalization itself:
Whether you fine illegal aliens or stick them in English classes or make them say a hundred Hail Marys, at the end of the day, illegals would be allowed to stay and become citizens under this bill. That's amnesty.
In other words, anything allowing those who came here illegally to stay here legally constitutes amnesty. To avoid amnesty, illegals must get in the back of the line for legal entry. [continue reading...]
Friday, April 6, 2007
The Daily Dose
Following the lead of Rob Bluey, I'm going to include a picture atop each daily dose post.
Say what you will about the president's Big Government conservatism, but his legacy will include an impressive roster of strict constructionists appointed to the federal bunch.
Despite the body blow that McCain took in his first-quarter fundraising, Chris Cillizza lays out the reasons this seasoned campaigner remains very viable.
