<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12702981\x26blogName\x3dSane+Nation\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://sanenation.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://sanenation.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d1476394626602319783', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

POLITICS AND THE COURTS: Sandra Day O'Connor has blasted what she considers political attacks on courts. Ruth Bader Ginsberg likewise resents legislative intrusions into the sanctity of judicial contemplation. O'Connor and Ginsberg need to realize that when the courts enter into the political process — when justices behave like superlegislators on issue after issue — you can bet that advocates of judicial restraint are going to speak up. The Founders did not state that the various branches of government were to be forbidden from commenting on one another's works. The Founders intended for judges to interpret the law as written, not impose their personal preferences on society. Thomas Lifson offers an incisive overview of judicial activism at its most flagrant.