A Conservative View of the Court

It is not possible or wise to defend every word George W. Bush says. As the world knows, he can be remarkably inarticulate when speaking off-the-cuff. He sometimes mangles thoughts and misuses statistics in the manner of most politicians. But— outside of the editorial offices of The Nation, The American Prospect, and some quarters of the New York Times and Washington Post—few people believe he is a liar. They’ve seen that in the White House before, and they know better. NR

NOT so long ago, liberals could be counted on to agitate for a “living Constitution,” and conservatives for “strict construction.” But those fronts have been crumbling. In the fights over President Bush’s judicial nominees, Democrats are now inveighing against “conservative judicial activism”—as evidenced by the Rehnquist Court’s perceived contempt for precedent and the democratic process.

MS

About the Author

Michael S. Greve

Mr. Greve is John G. Searle scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Featured Tags

It is not possible or wise to defend every word George W. Bush says. As the world knows, he can be remarkably inarticulate when speaking off-the-cuff. He sometimes mangles thoughts and misuses statistics in the manner of most politicians. But— outside of the editorial offices of The Nation, The American Prospect, and some quarters of the New York Times and Washington Post—few people believe he is a liar. They’ve seen that in the White House before, and they know better. NR

NOT so long ago, liberals could be counted on to agitate for a “living Constitution,” and conservatives for “strict construction.” But those fronts have been crumbling. In the fights over President Bush’s judicial nominees, Democrats are now inveighing against “conservative judicial activism”—as evidenced by the Rehnquist Court’s perceived contempt for precedent and the democratic process.