Judicial Speculation

Speculation is settling on Judge Edith Clement as Pres. Bush's likely nominee to the US Supreme Court.

The talk radio programs and political websites are heating up with criticism of the potential nominee based on her discussion of the abortion issue. According to Clement, the U.S. Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and "the law is settled in that regard."

You know what? She's right. The issue has been decided, and reaffirmed year after year after year. Does that mean the original decision was correct? Not necessarily.

But you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Conservatives cannot bemoan "activist judges" and "activist courts," and then immediately seek to appoint our own "activist judge" in hopes that he or she will overrule longstanding precedent with which we disagree. If we think it is correct to simply appoint a judge who will ignore stare decisis as long as he or she agrees with us, we have conceded that our Courts are no longer arbitrators of rights as determined by the people, but have instead become super-legislatures.

And that's just wrong.