Proper Judging Means Principled Engagement, Not Judicial Deference

We at Cato, as at all think tanks, are engaged daily in the battle of ideas —and it never ends. As an illustration, consider a basic issue that from the outset has animated our work at the Center for Constitutional Studies, the constitutional role of the courts. We’ve encouraged judges to be neither “activists,” in the mold often of the Warren and Burger Supreme Cou rts, nor “restrained” and deferential to the political branches, as many conservatives had urged in response, but “engaged” in limiting governments to their authorized powers while securing rights consistent with the Constitution’s guarantees. And we, along with others who’ve shared that understanding, have seen a marked shift on that issue, especially among many conservatives. In fact, it is often liberals today who charge conservatives on the Supreme Court with “judicial activism” when they hand down decisions like they often did inthe term just ended.That ’s why I was disappointed when I saw that theWall Street Journal’s Dan Henninger, whose Thursday column is usually outstanding, was last week urging President Trump to replace retiring Justice Kennedy with someone who would end “judicial overreach”—as if that were the problem today. So I sent a letter to theJournal, which they ’ve run today under the heading, “Correcting the Record on Judicial Activism.” Because theJournal is behind a paywall, let me reprint it here:Daniel Henninger ’s otherwise excellent Thursday colu...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs