STUART TAYLOR

Jim at OTB links to this piece from Stuart Taylor on judges and elections.

Taylor is unclear on whether or not the Supreme Court should have intervened in the 2000 election controversy. On the one hand, Taylor likes the idea that equal protection should be safeguarded by federal courts during presidential elections, and he believes that voters in Florida were not afforded equal protection by the FL Supreme Court's actions. On the other hand, Taylor thinks that the Supremes should have left it up to Congress to figure out what to do with the slates of electors. (How courageous to say that now!) And since he can't decide which is better -- and he thinks that federal courts are extending the equal protection rationale that he finds so tempting in Bush v. Gore -- he wishes that the Supreme Court somehow could "strike a blow against government by judiciary while putting the Bush v. Gore unpleasantness behind them. "

Here's a hint: you can't have both, Mr. Taylor. Bush v. Gore was an instance of government by judiciary. And as the Good Book says, approximately, by their fruits shall you know them. It is absolutely unprincipled to decry judicial activism and praise Bush v. Gore at the same time. You've got to chose.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to criticize all judicial activism, or to frankly declare that you only want conservative activist decisions (either in terms of the principles applied or the results). But if you don't see that conservative activism is also quite reasonably described as "judicial tyranny," then you've got to go back to school again and take "LIFE 101: Listening to People You Disagree With."