Just as I was starting to think that the WSJ was shedding a bit of its conservative bias, Peter Lattman writes this. He writes a short post that glorifies the suddenly clear-cut message that the Roberts Court is sending to lower courts. In Lattman’s opinion:

[I]n case after case, the court shifted toward what Chief Justice Roberts has previously referred to as “judicial self-restraint.” “As it addressed issues large and small, in civil disputes and criminal justice alike, the court’s resurgent conservative bloc repeatedly found that the question didn’t belong before a judge at all,” writes Bravin. Its disdain for “judicial activism” — courts making decisions they believe are best left to an elected executive, a legislature or the free market — may mark a diminished role for a federal judiciary.

Absolutely outrageous. I think there is value in what Chief Justice Roberts said he wanted to do, but his actual jurisprudence has not proven to be as a lofty. I would hardly call the court’s ruling in Carhart to be one that ‘found the question didn’t belong before a judge at all.’ Granted, the Court did grant a lot of power to local communities, but it also took a lot of power away. In Morse, the court affirmed a school district’s interest in a cohesive anti-drug policy on a very narrow concurring opinion by Justice Alito, but in Parents Involved, the court took away a desegregation policy that the local community had deemed to be appropriate. The court’s decision to strike down a 96-year old anti-trust law can hardly be considered a show of ‘judicial self-restraint.’ Peter Lattman either sees what he wants to see or is simply lying for the sake of it, but regardless, please don’t ever let someone tell you that the Roberts Court of 2006 rejected the pejorative notion of ‘judicial activism’. If anything, they embraced it on a level not seen in years.

Update (6:50pm): The problem is even worse than I originally feared. I don’t care about Peter Lattman’s blog anymore- the front page of the WSJ has an article that essentially says the same thing in three times as many words. Awesome.


1 Response to “Just When I Thought I Was Out, They Pull Me Back In”

  1. 1 Boumediene: Take Two at DailyWrit

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Nearly Final Term Statistics and Advocate Scorecard: My goal was to publish the final term statistics today, but because the Court will hear rearguments in Citzens United and likely issue an op...
  • Advocate Scorecard for OT 09: I finished this a while ago but neglected to post it until now. Whoops? Anyways, here is the OT 09 advocate scorecard with win/loss record. ...
  • A Big Little Case: Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an interesting case about water law in Montana, PPL Montana v. Montana. The case wi...
  • Supreme Court Releases April Hearing List: The Supreme Court today released the Hearing List for April. Gregory Garre, former Solicitor General, will argue two times in the next ...
  • Another Addition to the Two-in-a-Month Club: Former Solicitor General Gregory Garre is scheduled to argue twice during the December sitting, a relatively uncommon feat for private pract...