In an op-ed today, Yale professor Bruce Ackerman, author of "The Failure of the Founding Fathers" [!], writes about Bush [Senior] and the Stealth Justice.
Two things stand out (besides the Founding Fathers' "failure"). One is describing Clarence Thomas as a "reactionary", which is one of those words only commie nutjobs progressives use. The writer clearly despises Thomas and all his counter-revolutionary ilk -- which may explain why he thinks the Founders were such failures.
The other thing is the characterization of David Souter as "a moderate conservative in the tradition of John Marshall Harlan." Note that Souter voted about 80% of the time last term with the two most liberal justices (Stevens and Ginsberg). If this is conservative, what are Scalia and Thomas? Oh. Right. "Reactionary."
I do agree with his conclusion, however -- don't send us a Souter, send us a rock-ribbed reactionary so we have something to argue about. With any luck, Janice Rogers Brown.
I'm not sure I entirely disagree with their description of Clarence Thomas as a reactionary. To the extent he favors the status quo ante rather than the status quo, isn't that reaction, by definition? Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Posted by: Xrlq at July 7, 2005 01:48 PM