A lot of pundits have been calling for the democrats to make the Court a major campaign issue in light of the massive setback that is known as the 2006 Term. Some argue that democrats need to ‘control the issue’ and take judicial activism to the people. The problem with this notion is that these pundits assume that the American people want something different than what the Republicans say on their official platform. Democrats will call the Republicans activist and the Republicans will spew their official platform of judicial restraint and originalism. To the average American, that sounds just dandy. Democrats will have to argue that they are different- that they want something else. I certainly hope they don’t call for judicial activism and a living document because the Republicans will hound them will cries of judicial activism and ‘legislating from the bench’ regardless. You all know my opinion on Judicial Restraint and originalism with respect to their most common associations, but they certainly seem like good ideas to the American people and the Republicans will always pander to that.

Just yesterday, Rudy Giuliani unveiled his ‘Judicial Advisory Committee.’ He’s always had a ‘firm’ policy about ‘strict constructionist‘ and when I went to his site a minute ago, a banner related to the issue took up no less than 1/3 of my screen. His ‘Judicial Advisory Committee’ certainly sounds like a good idea and he packed the committee with some serious judicial minds. One of them even declared “Judges are meant to judge – not make laws. Under Rudy Giuliani, it will stay that way.” How would a democrat counter that kind of rhetoric? The Republicans have framed their side of the story in such a way that the democrats now have a reputation for being everything that the Republicans don’t claim to be- and thats not going to be good for the Democrats in 2008.

The only way for Democrats to ‘take back’ the federal courts is to win elections, and most specifically the President. I don’t expect the democrats to play dead on the judicial issue, and I don’t think they should, but whoever the democratic nominee for President is, they would be ill-advised to make a big deal out of Republican Judicial nominees without seriously reconsidering the rhetoric they use.



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

Categories

Random Posts

  • Updates: I've updated a lot of the information on the Term Case Index in preparation for today's cases. I expect the Supreme Court to hand down 1-2 o...
  • 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. ...
  • Advocates who have argued twice during a single sitting (OT03-Present): In honor of Carter Phillips arguing twice during the December sitting of the Court, I've compiled a list of every instance of this phenomeno...
  • Top Supreme Court Advocates of the Twenty-First Century: I have a new Article out in the Journal of Legal Metrics entitled Top Supreme Court Advocates of the Twenty First Century. You can download ...
  • Early OT09 Stats: I've finally finished the first edition of my OT09 statistics. First, the links: Term Index and Term Opinion Breakdown. Honestly, the nam...