judicial activism

Well, here we go again. With Neil Gorsuch as the current Supreme Court nominee, once more we hear praises of "originalism
Calls for judges to be constrained by the Constitution's original meaning are entirely proper--and important.
It is easy to be cynical about what has become an ugly partisan fight over Judge Garland's nomination. But the confirmation process can serve a valuable educational function.
If ever there was reason to end judicial selection by election, one need look no further than Kansas. The G.O.P. is seeking to replace four supreme court justices because it is unhappy with their rulings.
Will liberals and conservatives change their views about the role of the courts in enforcing the Constitution if a new liberal majority emerges on the Supreme Court?
Defending the notion that the Constitution -- all of it -- has a fixed, determinable meaning would take more than a brief essay. My ambitions here are modest -- to offer a sketch of why judges whose authority is derived from the Constitution cannot perform their duty unless they share Scalia's conviction that, "Words have meaning. And that meaning doesn't change."
The adulation by admirers of Justice Antonin Scalia over his alleged role as a conservative constitutional steward who applied neutral, nonpartisan principles, is pure myth. While promoted by conservative ideologues who fawn over Justice Scalia's flamboyant jurisprudence, holding him up as an icon for conservative principles, is simply hard to take.
Senator Rand Paul has departed from the Republican presidential race--but not before offering a much-needed challenge to conservative orthodoxy concerning the Constitution and the proper role of the courts in enforcing it.
President Obama recently highlighted the need for criminal justice reform which complements the bipartisan effort to reform our criminal justice system. However, reforming only the criminal justice system falls short of what is needed.