George Will has introduced the latest effort to claim that, by definition, only liberal judges can be enagaged in judicial activism. This latest gloss on the more accurate “judgifying I don’t like” is about as useful as you’d expect. Perhaps for the 10th anniversary of Bush v. Gore we can get a symposium of conservative […]
Tag: the meaningless of “judicial activism”
Matt beat me to it, but while I agree with 90% of what she says I think that Dahlia’s framing of the debate in this article concedes way too much (as much of her argument itself makes clear.) 聽
I wasn’t sure if it was worth linking to Tom Schaller’s analysis (using the great data collected by Tom Keck), as I assume it’s well-known that the idea that conservative judges are
Hopefully most readers of this site are well aware at this late date that “judicial activism” in ordinary political discourse means absolutely nothing more than “judgifying conservatives don’t like.” Still, claiming that it’s unacceptable “judicial activism” for judges to adjudicate breach of contract disputes takes things to a new level of vacuity. Apparently, according to […]
- Republican judges: it is illegal for Democratic presidents to govern
- Angell
- What do you mean “we”?
- Russia’s Get Rich Quick Nuclear Scheme – Oh Wait
- Oklahoma, Oh No
- Anti-fandom as identity
- This Day in Labor History: May 20, 1926
- The Party of Life: Starving babies are good if it’s politically damaging for Joe Biden
- LGM Film Club, Part 265: The Last Waltz
- Horse trading
2008 democratic primary
2012 Republican Primary
agriculture
baseball
books
California
china
civil liberties
Civil War
climate change
COVID-19
deaths
education
energy
environment
film
food
foreign policy
gay and lesbian rights
Gilded Age
graves
hacktacular
health care
higher education
immigration
i see dead people
labor
LGM film club
music
Native Americans
new gilded age
nfl
podcast
race
racism
reproductive freedom
russia
Sarah Palin
slavery
Supreme Court
television
texas
This Day in Labor History
trump
wingnuttery