A better word for living document


Good for Arlen Specter.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman warned Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. yesterday to expect tough questions about the court’s “judicial activism” and lack of respect for Congress.

The comments mark the second time this month that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has signaled plans to use Roberts’s confirmation hearing as a forum for sharply criticizing what Specter describes as the high court’s tendency to denigrate Congress’s thoroughness and wisdom in passing various laws. Specter’s questions could present Roberts with the difficult choice of disagreeing with the committee chairman or rebuking justices he hopes will soon be his colleagues. The committee’s hearing begins Sept. 6.

…Specter particularly criticized Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s writings in a 2000 decision, United States v. Morrison, involving the Violence Against Women Act. He told Roberts he will ask whether he agrees that Rehnquist’s reasoning is an example “of manufactured rationales used by the Supreme Court to exercise the role of super legislature.” Specter’s letter did not address the courts’ rulings so much as justices’ comments that he says show a disrespect for Congress and its diligence in making laws. He praised a dissenting opinion in a 2001 disabilities case that said courts should not “sit as a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations.”

On a side note, Kevin Drum writes an excellent post today on how a theory as ridiculous as originalism can gain such broad acceptance. He asks at the end of the post,

Regardless of originalism’s substantive merits, you can’t fight something with nothing, which makes Lithwick’s question a good one: why is it that liberals seem to have given up on formulating a simple and compelling alternative?

Liberals have formulated a simple and compelling alternative–viewing the Constitution as a living document that evolves over time in accordance with precedent–but we’ve failed to package and market it as well as conservatives. The difficulty in mass producing legal theory is compounded by a press corps that seems unwilling to abandon its comfortable cliches. They’ll spill plenty of ink on whether Roe v. Wade is binding and whether it’s a valid decision–which is essentially a critique of liberal judicial theory by proxy, unfair though that may be–but you don’t even get a passing reference to originalism or conservative judicial ideology in the article above, for example. In fact, all we know from the article is that Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in one of the cases mentioned in the letter. People don’t like talking about the justices as conservative and liberal, so refer to them as originalists!

One problem is, in public discourse right now, there’s no Roe to serve as a ligthening rod for criticism of originalism. Sure, liberals are partially to blame, I guess, for not working their base into a lather about a Supreme Court opinion, but it wouldn’t hurt to have a few articles (that aren’t written by the brilliant Dahlia Lithwick) that associate bad originalist opinions with originalism every once in a while.

I may write more on this later, because I’ve briefly made just one of many valid points on this topic. It’s an important conversation, and I hope others will take Kevin’s bait.

A final note, the American Constitution Society has done amazing work recently, both in terms of bringing together lawyers to formulate a clear liberal judicial philosophy, and in terms of spreading the word about it. I hope anyone who agrees with Kevin’s criticism will check out their website or their blog.

**Disclaimer: I’m an active member of the ACS chapter at Michigan.**

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.