Well, it looks like it's going to be a fight, doesn't it? There will be at least one Supreme Court nominee during W's second term, and we'll be lucky if we can fight through the muck to the facts. In fact, Scrappleface gives us a preview, in his inimitable style.
The very able Oswald Sobrino, JD at Catholic Analysis offers a helpful post that draws from an article in the weekend New York Times that explains some of the judicial philosophies on the conservative side of the spectrum. Before your eyes glaze over causing you to close this window in self-defense, let me suggest this as a chance to become literate about the wrinkes of judicial decision-making. The terms "judicial activism", "strict-constructionist", "Constitution as living document" get thrown around hither and yon. Those of us without a legal education but with a point of view about the upcoming Supreme Court appointment(s) may well want to learn the language so our opinions can be responsibly honed and eloquently expressed.
As for me, I'll settle for far less than eloquence. I'll be happy not to embarrass myself. But I do intend to develop well-reasoned opinions when appropriate and to refrain when it's not necessary. So I at least need to become well-educated enough to tell the difference.
Worth a Thousand Words: Bust of Aristotle
1 hour ago