Monday, July 04, 2005

O'Connor v. Bush?

Frum's criticism of Justice O'Connor generally has merit, but check out this howler of a paragraph:
And the harm she did extended far beyond the law. Even in what could have been her finest hour, the Bush v Gore case, her unwillingness to enunciate general and binding principles pushed the final judgment away from the clear and simple grounds preferred by the court's more conservative three justices to a muddy, confusing, ad hoc solution whose flimsy and unconvincing reasoning crippled Bush's first term and continues to poison American politics to this day.

Say huh? Maybe it takes a British Conservative journalist to provide the principled right-wing critique behind the majority decision in Bush/Gore. By what standard could Bush's first term possibly be viewed as "crippled" exactly? And how in the hell could such a sentiment be blamed on O'Connor's decision to agree with the majority, just not for the exact reasons of Scalia et co.?

How ridiculously weak.


Post a Comment

<< Home