Pinch Sulzberger must really hate Clarence Thomas, a black man who refuses to cowtow to the liberal dogma. Pinch has piece up by one Linda Greenhouse moaning about the current, barely conservative, make-up of Supreme Court. Greenhouse writesof her vision [1] for the Constitution:
Exactly what that vision should encompass is now the question. It is easy enough to find consensus on a checklist that would include a robust reading of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, including the notion that some rights are fundamental; a constitutional interpretation not tethered to a search for the framers’ original intent; invigorating the right to privacy to include personal privacy in the electronic age; restoring the shield of habeas corpus; and recapturing the government’s ability to intervene for the benefit of African-Americans and other minority groups without being constrained by the formal and ahistorical neutrality that liberals saw as the conceptual flaw in the chief justice’s opinion a little over a week ago invalidating two voluntary school integration plans.
Suffice to say that Pinch and Greenhouse do not see the Constitution as device to limit the power of the federal government, Rather the two see the Constitution, or at least th their personal version of it, as a device ti implement the liberal social agenda:
If Pinch and Greenhouse do not see the Constitution teetered to Orignal Intent, what if anything do they see as a limit on the power of the state?
Greenhouse bolivating did not play too well in Madison. Ann Althouse [2] weighs in:
The liberal lawprofs’ dream seems to be that you could get people to believe that the expansive vision of rights is the proper way to do constitutional interpretation and they’d be willing to go along with that even if they didn’t want these rights enough to support enacting them into law through statutes. But what are the chances that people today would allow liberal academics to convince them of such a thing?
Just like their hero Franklin D. Roosevelt the liberals still want to pack the court, because they can’t not sell the public on their looney social agenda.