Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Over at QandO, Dale Franks has his commentary up on Roper vs Simmons, and of all the commentary I have yet read on this, Dale comes closest to hitting the nail on the head with his observation: "one suspects that the judges are only interested in finding support for certain preferred positions".

What is surprising is that so few legal commentators even hint at this - that the Justices have long been deciding cases based on their 'preferred positions'. Their written opinions serve no purpose other than to detail the best support they can muster for that preferred position.

For far too long both legal scholars and the public have given way too much credit to these Justices and the Supreme Court in particular. These Justices are no more able to separate their personal feelings from their work than anyone else can. They don't base their decisions on hours and hours of research and deep contemplation of the law. They base their decisions on what they want the outcome to be.

The sooner more people - in particular, conservative - come around to this realization, the better.