The New York Times has inadvertently lent their prestigious name in support of my argument that we are all safest when the Supreme Court is in the hands of people who try to maintain a "strict constructionist" orientation. In Unconscious Processes and the Supreme Court, I said:
The focus on outcome is a slippery slope to tyranny by five fallible humans. Once a Supreme Court judge decides that the words of the document mean whatever he prefers them to mean, we are at his mercy. The argument that the strict constructionists are also bringing their own unconscious desires to the discussion only reinforces my contention. Once you recognize how dangerous the idea of an "outcome" oriented process is, you should be grateful for those who will do their best to stick closest to the actual text.
The Times has admitted investigating the adoption records of the Roberts children. This is despicable. One wonders, how can it be that this passed muster with all those layers of editorial safeguards that the MSM maintain, their great advantage over all of us bloggers?
(Powerline does their usual great job discussing this, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the Times, as a bonus.)
Actually, it is, sadly, understandable. Man is a rationalizing animal. Despite best intentions, when we see a goal we desire, it is all too easy to rationalize the relaxation or forfeiture of our principles. The Times finds the goal of keeping Roberts off the Court so important (for reasons best known to them) that they are willing to sacrifice ethics, principles, moral standards, and any other of the values that keep our discourse minimally civilized.
In March, I wrote the third installment of a series on Intellectualization, Free Speech, & Unintended Consequences (Part I & Part II). In Part III, I summarized my sense of the danger to our freedoms that attend the separation of our Supreme Court's decision-making from the text of the Constitution.
We also need something greater than ourselves to anchor our morality; otherwise morality is just opinion. In our secular world, we have had the tremendous advantage of some rather brilliant men who put to paper, over 200 years ago, a set of principles which have served to protect the kinds of personal freedoms that have never been seen before for so many for so long. If we replace our reliance on the words they left us and instead rely on what we want the words to mean, we are endangering our freedoms, almost always with the best of intentions. When Justice Kennedy writes that his recent decision on executing minors (a decision I agree with, by the way) is in part based on the opinions of the international (ie EU) elite, I see us moving into dangerous territory. We need Supreme Court Justices who are humble men, who do not see things in the words that are not there. If our freedoms depend on the opinions of nine fallible individuals, I would prefer to rely on individuals who recognize how little we really know, even about ourselves, and how little we really can know. We should be extraordinarily careful of altering something which has worked well, if not perfectly, for over 200 years. The Constitution is difficult to amend for a reason and the unintended consequences of creative interpretation of the Constitution are quite frightening.
The New York Times, which used to be our nation's greatest newspaper, still a liberal icon, which in so many other situations would fiercely defend the right to privacy of people they support, including terrorists and terrorist enablers, is able to jettison their principles because of their worry that a Judge Roberts would decide cases in opposition to their liberal desires.
If we needed any further proof of my thesis, we would need to look no farther than the New York Times.
Recent Comments