From the Editor

The Swinging Court

Advocates of judicial restraint and common sense have been happily celebrating the arrival of “the Reagan Court” with its supposed 5—4 conservative majority since it handed down the three judgements limiting affirmative action last July, national review pointed out at the time just how technical and marginal these limitations were. But because devotees of judicial activism were wringing their hands over the prospective reversal of Earl Warren’s legacy, we overcame our doubts and looked forward to the Court’s next sitting. Then, last week, came the cold light of dawn—or, rather, the cold water of Mr. Justice Brennan’s endorsement of the exclusionary rule supported by a 5-4 majority of the Court.

About the Author

John O’Sullivan

John O’Sullivan is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

The Swinging Court

Advocates of judicial restraint and common sense have been happily celebrating the arrival of “the Reagan Court” with its supposed 5—4 conservative majority since it handed down the three judgements limiting affirmative action last July, national review pointed out at the time just how technical and marginal these limitations were. But because devotees of judicial activism were wringing their hands over the prospective reversal of Earl Warren’s legacy, we overcame our doubts and looked forward to the Court’s next sitting. Then, last week, came the cold light of dawn—or, rather, the cold water of Mr. Justice Brennan’s endorsement of the exclusionary rule supported by a 5-4 majority of the Court.