Cold Comfort

In today's press conference, George Bush stated Harriet Miers is a "strict constructionist" who will not "legislate from the bench." If I were a conservative, this would mean nothing to me, unless I thought Bush was winking while he said it, really meaning "she's a conservative who'll always agree with us."

The mantra about interpreting the law, not legislating, has always been a meaningless distinction. No matter which side your "interpretation" comes down on, it will become the (new) law of the land. And even a "strict constructionist" can find what she wants in the Constitution, assuming she wants it badly enough.

No one knows what sort of judge Miers will make, but conservatives (and liberals) should hope for someone guided by more than just interpretative principles, which are pretty thin reeds to hang a whole career on.

ColumbusGuy adds LAGuy has always had trouble with a few relatively simple things, Manhattan Media bias among them, but this also near the top of the list. For him, there is no difference between legislating and interpreting. How odd that the rest of the world seems to disagree, outside of some disingenuous deconstructionists.

In any case, I'm heartened by Roberts' statement, "I view the vote this morning as confirmation of what is for me a bedrock principle, that judging is different from politics."

Is Roberts a cipher? Sure. We won't know how he rules until he rules. But the distinction between legislating and interpreting, difficult though it admittedly is, is surely more clear than "I'll always agree with you, honey," which suggests that LAGuy should enter a prenuptial contract before he enters his nuptials.

BTW: No racing stripes! One Rehnquist tradition dead and buried already. Let's hope Lopez isn't next.

LAGuy notes: Sure, everyone believes there's a difference. In fact, it's because everyone believes this that we can tell the standard means nothing. Here's the true difference, and it's crystal clear--when you decide the way I like, you're interpreting, when you decide the way I don't, you're legislating.

I'd think ColumbusGuy would be more humble. After all, the hallmark of what most people think this whole thing means is deferring to legislators, whereas under ColumbusGuy's view, the Court would be throwing out laws by the hundreds. If the Court actually decided cases the way ColumbusGuy wants, Republicans and Democrats alike would be shouting from the mountaintops that this Court legislates like no other.

ColumbusGuy adds: Hmm. You stand alone against all others with a wacky opinion, but I'm supposed to be more "humble" because (some) Republicans and (some) Democrats would scream about the consequences of my view? How about we add the Ninth Amendment to the mix? That'd give you all the Common Law you're so fond of, and *plenty* of room for interpretation. And as AnnArborGuy has pointed out, it would drive Bork over the edge, and probably a number of others, too.

LAGuy adds: I don't need the Ninth Amendment, the common law is already in the Bill Of Rights.