Uneasy Rhetoric

It has been said a thousand times already, and I know it’s too much for us to assume that any political rhetoric would be consistent, but will somebody please tell me how the Right is getting away with calling judges they don’t like “activist judges” who “legislate from the bench” while at the same time insisting that their Supreme Court nominee be ready to overturn Roe v. Wade?

It is a specific issue for which the Right seeks a specific answer and a specific change in public policy. How is that not “activist” or “legislating from the bench”?

Another observation: the entire purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law of the land; by design, they may chose to throw out or uphold various policies. Because they “interpret,” they will sometimes, out of necessity, describe how a law ought to be administered rather than simply saying “yes” or “no” to it. In a broadly-defined sense, “legislating from the bench” is what justices do.

The phrase is one of those meaningless, throw-away phrases that has been impregnated with meaning that has little to do with what the phrase actually references. It has become a slogan for impartiality.

So the Right is looking for a justice who will weigh the arguments carefully and then overturn Roe v. Wade. They will not be satisfied with the process unless it leads to their conclusion. Tell me again how this is impartial?

Given the controversial nature of the abortion debate, I would expect some impartial justices to come down in favor and some against. The problem isn’t that a justice will or won’t overturn Roe, the problem is that the Right wants a justice for whom such an action is a foregone conclusion. They want the answer before the question is even asked. They want the appearance of impartiality, not the fact.