I’m sorry blogging has been so light today, but it’s been a go-go-go kind of day that’s left little time for anything but, well, going. I did have a thought today, which I’ll share with you.
Most lawyers I know have little that’s complimentary to say about the average trial court judge, a feeling that often extends to appellate courts (who are viewed as slightly brighter, although just as capable of intellectual dishonesty and bias). Any conversation with lawyers eventually gets around to this or that judge and the terrible decisions emanating from that “honorable” member of the bar.
Given all that, I find it incredibly perplexing when lawyers announce to me that they have no problem with judicial activism. Let’s just ignore entirely, for the moment, the anti-democratic nature of judicial activism — something the Founding Fathers devoutly hoped to avoid. Even with that out of the way, I can’t grasp why someone who deals daily with the fact that judges are, on average, merely average, with a striking number (let’s say, about half) below average, would still want to place decisions of major national importance in the hands of these same judges.
This is the kind of cognitive dissonance that drove me away from the Left and into the Right. There’s a lack of logic driving liberal thinking that I simply couldn’t handle any more. My brain rebelled. Considering that I spent more than a decade harping about bad judges, why would I increase their power? I simply elevated learned real world over theory.