GOOD FOR ANDREW SULLIVAN

NRO-TC ^ | 3/29/05 | Ramesh Ponnuru

[swilhelm73]

for linking to Tom West--always a good thing, to my mind.

The link follows this passage from Sullivan: "It's been striking lately how the rhetoric of some conservatives has morphed into revolutionary tones. Bill Kristol, at heart an ally of religious radicalism, calls for a revolution against the independent judiciary we now have. Fox News' John Gibson has argued that 'the temple of the law is not so sacrosanct that an occasional chief executive cannot flaunt it once in a while.' Bill Bennett has said that the courts are not the ultimate means to interpret law and the constitution, that the people, with rights vested in the Declaration of Independence, have a right to overturn the courts if judges violate natural law precepts such as the right to life. Beneath all this is a struggle between conservatives who place their faith in the formalities of constitutionalism and those who place their literal faith in the God-revealed truths they believe are enshrined in the Declaration, truths that alone give meaning, in their eyes, to America as a political project."

I disagree with Gibson's views and will therefore not try to defend them. Kristol and Bennett, meanwhile, are being caricatured. To argue (as Kristol does) that the courts have assumed too much power in American life over the last few decades and need to be divested of some of it is not necessarily to argue that their "independence" should be threatened. The discussion of Bennett is hopelessly confused. To affirm that the courts are not the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution is not to say that anyone may rightly ignore the Constitution (nor need anyone who thinks that there are occasions when the courts should be overruled on a point of constitutional interpretation feel obligated to confine those overrulings to occasions when the natural law is violated). Finally, the question of whether (and to what extent) the Constitution should be read in light of the Declaration of Independence doesn't underlie any of this. It is perfectly possible to be skeptical of grandiose claims for the authoritativeness of the Declaration on legislators and courts while also believing that the courts don't have a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. There are conservatives who believe both these things. (I'm one of them.)

Basically, Sullivan is tossing everything he dislikes about various conservatives into a bag, shaking it up, and pouring it out. This may be what happens to otherwise "sane, moderate, thoughtful people" who start trying to lead a "purge."

[swilhelm73]

The notion that the courts do not have the power of judicial review (let alone the currently assumed power of judicial legislation) goes back to Thomas Jefferson, who I guess now is a member of the radical religious right.

[MisterRepublican]

"...the independent judiciary we now have..."


Ha hah hahahahahahahahahah.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I believe Sullivan is nothing but a game player. He has played conservatives brilliantly. It seems that he has a very high IQ and a very low moral sense. Knowledge (and craftiness) minus wisdom (and goodness) equals Andrew Sullivan.

[adam_az]

"Basically, Sullivan is tossing everything he dislikes about various conservatives into a bag, shaking it up, and pouring it out."

Nooooooooo......... ;)

[marron]

The confrontation with the judiciary that many conservatives are spoiling for, is not intended as an attack on the Constitution. It is rather the precise opposite, it is to stop what is perceived as an out-of-control judiciary that has assigned itself the right to over-rule the Constitution itself.

To say that judges should be independent is not to say that they are immune from oversight, or that they must therefor rule supreme over the other branches. Separation of powers means that any branch may be counterbalanced by the other branches as needed. Sometimes we have an out-of-control president, most of the times an out-of-control Congress, and increasingly we see out-of-control judges.

You use which ever of the three you can, to hammer the others back into place, as often as needed.

[SouthCarolinaKit]

We're being ruled by 'nine lawyers in robes' as Mona Charen describes the Supreme Court, with no Constitutional basis for their decisions. Without that, we have no balance of powers.
The only control of the Judicial Branch is through the legislature changing the laws / Constitution, but since that no longer effects their decisions, the US has become a
country run by the tyranny of the Judiciary!
I Want My Constitution back and I couldn't agree more with
Bill Crystal that we MUST rebel! I'll be first in line!

[farmer18th]

Hugh Hewitt claimed on his show yesterday that Thomas Jefferson was wrong about judicial tyranny, pointing out that Jefferson was not at the constitutional convention. I guess, in Hugh's mind, that means that Jefferson knew less about intent than Hugh Hewitt.

Hugh is desperately trying to save the conservative movement from people who take the founders too seriously. I wonder what Hugh would say about John Jay and the jury's right to try law as well as fact.