I was stunned when I read these words this morning.

Protecting employees from retaliation makes sense, but it is not the province of judges to create such protections on the basis of their own beliefs of what is right or wrong, or even on the basis of their intuitive sense of what Congress meant to do or should have done. And those who today praise the outcome shouldn't be upset if in the future justices read into the law new principles that lead to results they may find less acceptable.

There is a term for what the Washington Post is criticizing – judicial activism. In the past, the paper has been loath to criticize it. Did I miss some major earthshaking event that allowed this editorial to make it into print – or is their editorial page going conservative?

What next -- a call for strict constructionalism and the jurisprudence of original intent?

Posted by: Greg at 09:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.