judicial tyranny

[Justin Schwartz]

I think Leo is right about the difference between where Nathan is going and 
where I am. He's right about where I am, anyway. I'm not saying that 
professionalism is easy in hard cases--that is what makes them hard. But 
most cases are not hard, or not hard that way. This is also true of most 
constitutional cases, whic are themselves quite rare. One reason this isn't 
known much by legal theorists and political philosophers is that the 
overwhelming majority of cases are not interesting, and many of the ones 
that are interesting to lawyers, or the kind of lawyers who like clerk work, 
would cause instant catatonia ina ny other sentient being.--jks

It strikes me that Nathan, in his complete hostility to what he
>calls "judicial activism" . . .  is implicitly adopting a position on 
>behalf of
>legislative supremacy, a system of complete parliamentary rule.
>
>As I read Justin, by contrast, as much more concerned with the professional
>rigor of how the court decides on the cases that come before it. . . .  
>Justin's position is much more concerned with separating law from
>politics, with instituting and maintaining a rule of law. . . . This  is 
>not all that
>different, I believe, from the regulative ideal of other professions, such 
>as
>journalists, scientific researchers, and educators. Where I differ with
>Justin is that I do not think that it is as easy to approach this 
>regulative
>ideal as his posts seem, at times, to suggest.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com