For me, an interesting thing that has come into focus after this recent “2nd amendment ruling” by the Supreme Court is the way that we hear people discuss it. Unless you’re listening to a [C]onservative, you’re going to hear someone discuss how this ruling will affect public safety and mayors and states and subsequent law-suits and what not. But Conservatives are discussing how the ruling is important because it was based on constitutionality.
On the NPR drive home last night (see previous post), they had a segment about a few different Supreme Courts since Kennedy and how that one was a little more liberal and this one was a little more conservative and the other one was such and such. Well, the classification was completely based on “policy” questions like abortion, gun control, and civil rights and they never once touched on the constitutionality of those decisions. Well, this is the real tip-off to liberal media bias — not so much liberal policy preferences — because this is the foundational difference between conservativism and liberalism. So even if they were showing a preference for “conservative” policies but discussing the court’s decisions based on policy preferences, they’ve got a liberal slant. On NPR, they were actually saying that today’s court’s conservative slant (close, but not quite) was a reaction to the liberal court of the 70s. They had no clue that we simply have four judges who are judging cases according to the constitution and the law and four black-robed tyrants and one who wakes up and decides which side to be on depending on how he feels.
Although few people have probably heard him do it (unless they listen to Rush), this is the important point that the esteemed Justice Scalia has been preaching — that is, that judges have no business injecting their “personal policy preferences” (Scalia’s words) into their decisions. They are supposed to be judging, not legislating.