July 8, 2005

NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH:

J. Harvie Wilkinson III (George Will, July 8, 2005, Townhall)

The short answer is: J. Harvie Wilkinson III. A longer answer to the question of who President Bush should nominate to fill today's Supreme Court vacancy is:

Constitutional law is rife with clashing certitudes generated by too-clever theories purporting to illuminate the one valid approach to construing the Constitution. These theories obscure uncertainties inherent in all legal reasoning, and especially in construing a written Constitution in light of precedents produced by applying it in political contexts, and to controversies, unforeseen by its framers.

Many conservatives are rightly dismayed by exercises of judicial discretion so sweeping they resemble legislative willfulness, not tethered to analyses of the discernible intentions of the Constitution's framers, or of its text, structure, and yield of precedents. Undismayed liberals eagerly blur the distinction between legislative and judicial functions: Having lost much of their power to persuade electoral majorities, liberals seek success through litigation rather than legislation.

Liberals and conservatives, Wilkinson has written, differ about ``the place of compassion in the democratic process.'' The human condition is prey to myriad misfortunes. ``Victims of social circumstances, however, are altogether distinct from victims of another's violation of a specific legal duty. It is the job of the democratic process to ameliorate the effects of the former. It is the judiciary's charge to rectify the latter.''


He's only a traditionalist conservative--I'd never vote Republican again....

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 8, 2005 2:31 PM
Comments

I wonder if he ever learned to type.

Send me a man who types.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 8, 2005 3:29 PM

" ... I'd never vote Republican again."

Heh.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 8, 2005 5:10 PM

You mean like Truman Capote?

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 8, 2005 5:15 PM

Real conservatives only write on parchment using quill pens by the light of a whale oil lamp.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 8, 2005 5:56 PM

Chill. Nothing has happened yet.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 8, 2005 6:21 PM

I can't believe some of you have been here longer than I have and yet take OJ seriously when he says that.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 8, 2005 7:24 PM

Traditionalist conservatives believe that judicial wisdom is built up slowly, and judges shouldn't depart radically in any direction from the Constitution as it has been interpreted in case law over the ages. [...] On the current court, they are best represented by Justice David Souter.

Reminds me again why I've long considered Jeffrey Rosen a knucklehead.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 8, 2005 7:29 PM

BTW, if Souter really felt that way, he would not have voted to overrule Bowers v Hardwick (buggery)or teenage death sentences.

He is a slimy liberal.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 8, 2005 8:28 PM

Amen to what Robert says. Regarding OJ state of vexation regarding criticism of Gonzales amongst conservatives, then he can look to Souter as the reason for such suspicions.

Posted by: h-man at July 8, 2005 9:03 PM

Typers are cretins.

Posted by: oj at July 8, 2005 9:08 PM

"Typers are cretins," O.J. typed as the words appeared on the glowing monitor before him. . . .

Posted by: Mike Morley at July 8, 2005 10:15 PM

He does it with his forehead so technically it's not typing.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 8, 2005 10:19 PM

"He's only a traditionalist conservative--I'd never vote Republican again"

Any conservative is better than almost any Democrat

Posted by: Don Singleton at July 9, 2005 10:14 AM

"He's only a traditionalist conservative--I'd never vote Republican again"

Any conservative is better than almost any Democrat

Posted by: Don Singleton at July 9, 2005 10:15 AM

I believe Wilkinson was the last newspaperman in America or maybe anywhere to write his stories with a pen. Last by at least 60 years.

Definitely a conservative traditionalist, no doubt about that.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 10, 2005 6:18 PM
« BAD MUSLIMS? | Main | UNWITTINGLY?: »