Judicial Activism and Other Conservative Myths

One of the most irksome traits common to many (most?) conservatives of the early 21st Century is the catalogue of myths to which they faithfully cling despite empirical evidence to the contrary. Many of these myths are applied to people whom they are not (e.g., liberals, non-Caucasians, non-Christians, etc.). Examples include the “wisdom” that liberals love taxes and desire to appease terrorists and other enemies and that character, values, and choices are the most important determinants of one’s relative wealth or poverty.

Another type of conceit in which conservatives like to indulge is the myth that their positions are determined by godly principles that are at odds with the self-serving expedience favored by the usurpers of the left. One particularly damnable myth is that conservatives are strict constructionists who are offended by efforts to “legislate from the bench.” This presumes:

1. that it is an easy, straightforward process to determine the original intent of the writers of words the Constitution and its amendments. There is much potential for misunderstanding and ambiguity for passages that were composed with utmost care last week. Why do they believe that there is only one correct way to understand that which was written a couple of centuries ago?

and

2. that opponents of judicial activism will, on principle, reject it even when legislating from the bench brings a decision they find favorable. Examples of this include Bush v Gore and the recent Citizens United decisions.

Conservatives should admit that honorable people can reach different conclusions about what a given written passage may mean or what the writer may have intended them to mean; if it were simple, judicial review would be unnecessary. They should also hold themselves to the same standards to which they hold their adversaries. If “judicial activism” is morally unjustifiable, then it’s also bad when the benefit accrues to the Red Team, too.