Summary
In "Supreme farce: Part II" (Commentary, Sunday), Thomas Sowell paraphrases Justice Stephen Breyer's judicial philosophy, observing that he believes when "laws are 'not clear, .. judges" must rely "on the 'values' they see behind the laws," not the laws' words. Branding such approach "shameless sophistry," Mr. Sowell points out its condescending nature. Equally shameless and condescending is how activist judges twist and otherwise play with the meaning of plain words to achieve their desired values-oriented result. The outcome is that their decisions tend to be contrary to the law and pernicious in effect. An egregious example is Justice William O. Douglas' discovery in Griswold v. Connecticut that the "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations," affording rights to privacy. Such illusion provided grist for Roe v. Wade.
There are those who have read Griswold and have no clue what Justice Douglas was saying, which is not surprising, considering that his opinion is baloney. It might be amusing were it not so deadly. Borrowing Mr. Sowell's words, these are the "average" people upon whom activist judges believe they have the right and duty "to impose their superior wisdom and virtue." Scary. Whatever the court's motives, snuffing life based upon "penumbras" and "emanations" is sick.See the full content of this document
Extract
Supreme Court and the 'M' Word
Some activist judges are more subtle but equally...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
