Re: Re: Rosen, Judges & Me
I note, too, that while claiming that the Court acts in the mainstream of American thought, Rosen then disparages congressional reaction to the Court’s actions–Congress being the representative body in this dispute. You would think if the Court was so mainstream, Congress wouldn’t feel the need to act. Rosen then attempts to get around his contradiction by claiming Congress, run by Republicans, is a tool of the religious right. This is liberal elitist dogma, used to dismiss any independent thought that doesn’t embrace government by judiciary. Of course, I’m not of the religious right. And I wrote the book defending congressional action, to which Rosen refers. But not a word from Rosen in defense of Congress’s legitimate Article III power, which it actually has used repeatedly in our history to determine federal court jurisdiction. He also must downplay the Court’s contortions when it delves into political and policy areas with often absurdly reasoned decisions which, of course, is at the heart of activism and our “living and breathing” Constitution. I much prefer to debate the issues, and the arguments I make in the book, or arguments others make about the book, rather than chasing fictions. I understand why liberals, most law professors, and writers for The New Republic–Rosen being all three–consider the Court mainstream on cultural issues. But many of us don’t.