I agree with a lot of his column today–which is no surprise, since I think he’s one of the best, maybe the best, of the big-time conservative columnists. But the column displays two flaws–one characteristic, one not. The uncharacteristic flaw is a kind of logical sloppiness: Judicial independence, judicial supremacy, and the separation of powers are all treated as the same thing, and the same, uncomplicated thing at that.

The second, characteristic flaw is the dismissal of opposing points of view as “deranged” (sometimes synonyms are used). Conservatives usually (and wrongly) overlook this habit of Krauthammer because his targets are usually on the Left. “The non-deranged way to correct the problem [of judicial excess] is to appoint a new generation of judges committed to judicial modesty.” Well, it is a non-deranged way to try to correct the problem. But one could reasonably conclude from 35 years of attempting to apply this solution without much success that something more is needed. I think that there are certain favorable conditions at work now (e.g., a large supply of Federalist Society types) that have not been in place in the past, so a good-appointments strategy might work better than it has in the past. But I don’t think it’s deranged to think that structural solutions might also be worth considering, whether term limits or jurisdiction stripping or something else.