Judicial Philosophy versus Political Ideology

quote:

---

There is a story that two of the greatest figures in our law, Justice Holmes and Judge Learned Hand, had lunch together and afterward, as Holmes began to drive off in his carriage, Hand, in a sudden onset of enthusiasm, ran after him, crying, “Do justice, sir, do justice.” Holmes stopped the carriage and reproved Hand: “That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law.”

Judge Robert Bork

---

From the perspective of the Ideological Right, the very different natures of the judicial philosophies of two wings of the bench present a problem. In particular, the prevailing judicial philosophy of the Judicial Right dictates that it sometimes MUST render results inconsistent with the desires of the Ideological Right.

The Judicial Right (at least the best of them) see both the Constitution and statutes as solid, as opposed to something that can be shaped to fit an ideological mold. When the pre-existing solid shape simply CANNOT fit their mold, they acknowledge this fact, do the difficult thing, and rule accordingly even if that ruling is contrary to their own political ideology.

The Judicial Left sees both the Constitution and statutes as fluid, or at least rather malleable. Thus, they see nothing disingenuous in shaping both to fit the mold of their political views. To the contrary, their entire judicial philosophy says that they SHOULD do so.

Thus, on a Court evenly-divided between the two camps, the Ideological Left will prevail more often than the Ideological Right.

The jurists that I understand the least (and dislike the most) are those who CLAIM to be the former, but act in a manner more consistent with the latter.

And the laymen that I dislike the most are those who denigrate jurists on the Judicial Right who make principled rulings against their own POLITICAL ideology, when such is mandated by the first-discussed judicial philosophy. Those judges put principle over ideology, and partisan hacks call them “cuck.”