I do not disagree with Michael Gerson's criticisms here, though I do not fully agree with them. There is danger in what he fears, but there is also some use of wisdom, which I do want from judges. I know that O'Connor, for instance, had a very Platonic view of the role of judge as one who must maintain peace and stability in society. There is danger in this, as there is danger in every approach.
An excerpt:
To find the health-care law constitutional, Roberts reimagined it. It was outcome-based jurisprudence, even if the intended outcome was institutional harmony. It was an act of judicial arrogance, even in the cause of judicial deference. And it raises deeper concerns. Unmoored from a reasonable interpretation of the law, institutionalism easily becomes the creed of the philosopher-king — hovering above the balance of powers, tinkering benevolently here and there, instead of living within the constraints of the system.
Roberts has been praised for striking a grand political compromise that the political class could not achieve — for cooling tempers, for granting each side a useful measure of victory and defeat. But who died and left Roberts the job of Daniel Webster?
Recent Comments