Michael Gaynor
Wendy Long's for constitutional fidelity and fairness, not judicial activism and partiality
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Michael Gaynor
March 3, 2012

Long is an ardent and articulate proponent of constitutional fidelity and the rule of law and opponent of legislating from the bench.

New York Daily News
Albany Bureau Chief Ken Lovett has been mdescribing Wendy Long, a candidate for the United States Senate, as a "judicial activist." See, for example, http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/02/wendy-long-no-relation-to-mike-to-do-listening-tour.

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."

Long is an ardent and articulate proponent of constitutional fidelity and the rule of law and opponent of legislating from the bench. As a former law clerk to both Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge Ralph Winter, that's hardly a surprise.

See, for example, Long's Bench Memo posted on June 27, 2009 at http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/49837/ramesh-conservative-judicial-activism/wendy-long, in which Long rejected any judicial activism:

"...conservatives would certainly be guilty of 'judicial activism' if they engaged in it. But it's just very rare (nowadays) for 'conservatives' to do so — because they believe in fighting political battles in the proper (political) arena, win or lose. If you can provide a real current example of 'conservative judicial activism' — because the two you have provided do not qualify — I would readily agree that it is improper 'conservative judicial activism.' The economic substantive due process at work in Lochner v. New York was 'conservative judicial activism,' for example. But Justice Thomas's position on the Voting Rights Act does not qualify as 'judicial activism' or as any betrayal of originalism, nor does the legal argument for Frank Ricci. The text of the 14th Amendment says 'No person shall be denied equal protection of the laws.' The text of the 15th Amendment gives Congress enforcement power against racial discrimination in voting, not enforcement power in the absence of racial discrimination. And nothing in the history of the 14th Amendment undercuts the argument that a white or Latino firefighter is discriminated against when a promotion is denied to him after a non-discriminatory test, on the ground that no blacks could thereby be promoted. It is never 'activism' to faithfully interpret and apply the Constitution. If you are truly evaluating the text and history and principles of the Constitution (which never contradict each other, but where evidence is scanty in one area, it may be more plentiful in another; this is the opposite of inventing stuff out of thin air, applying one's own personal views, or invoking some evolving, enlightened global moral consensus), it isn't activism; it's the only correct way to apply the Constitution as an Article III judge. I want to bend over backwards to say you are right that 'conservative judicial activism' is possible, and that it's as bad a way for an Article III judge to behave as it is to engage in liberal judicial activism. I just want to come up with a better example, because your examples are wrong. And because any really good actual example is so elusive, it's proof that conservatives do not, as you imply, engage in anything like the judicial activism that liberals do. Just look at Ed Whelan's posts on this blog under 'This Day in Liberal Judicial Activism': could you, in a million years, construct a parallel continuing feature, 'This Day in Conservative Judicial Activism'? OK, 'On this day in 1905, a majority of the Supreme Court held that freedom of contract prevented New York from regulating the working hours of bakers....' The material just isn't there. Your examples do not cut it for the reasons stated, but I am happy to validate your hypothetical thesis with a hypothetical case of conservative judicial activism or two: Let's say that some hypothetical Supreme Court (because there is not even one vote for this position on the current Court) ruled that the Constitution prohibits any abortion at all, i.e. that the 5th and 14th Amendments affirmatively and absolutely protect the right to life of unborn human beings in this country from their moment of conception — i.e., the perfect judicial opposite of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Although this would be less of a constitutional and originalist stretch than were Roe and Doe themselves, and although some serious and scholarly people make this argument that the pro-life position is protected by the existing Constitution (I think, though I may be wrong, that this is the view of people such as Lew Lehrman and Doug Kmiec), I would understand if you said such an argument, or ruling, would represent 'conservative judicial activism.' Another example might be, if conservatives said, the Constitution (in its present form) enforces a regime of marriage limited to one man and one woman, and that if a state wants to legislate marriage among persons of the same sex, an unlimited number of persons of any sex, etc., states cannot do so. I can see where one might label this 'conservative judicial activism' — but, as we see, conservatives are not trying to do that, only to either (a) amend the Constitution properly, as the document itself provides, instead of illegitimately 'amending' it by judicial fiat, or (b) fight the battle for traditional marriage in the legislatures, where absent a proper constitutional amendment it belongs. That these are mere hypotheticals is the point: conservatives just aren't doing what liberals are doing in the judicial activism category. And if there were ever a moment when this point needs to be conveyed to the great majority of Americans whose instincts on this are so much sounder than Larry Tribe's, and Barack Obama's, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's, and Sonia Sotomayor's, it is now. This is why your column was so heartbreaking. As one 'soccer mom' told me today, the arguments about the court seem like 'inside baseball' to her fellow Americans (the ones who are going to sustain or allow the collapse of self-government): 'They just think it's about liberal vs. conservative and whose ox is getting gored. They don't realize that this is about procedure and order and the rule of law, on the one hand, vs. chaos and power grabs on the other."

New York junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is a judicial activist advocate and rubberstamp for liberal activist judges.

Long advocates impartiality instead of favoritism.

As Long wrote on April 16, 2009 in "What's the Matter with Empathy? Obama's criterion for picking federal judges would turn equal justice on its head" (www.nationalreview.com/articles/227308/whats-matter-empathy/wendy-long):

"What's wrong with being empathetic to...any group or individual in general?

"What's wrong with it is that federal judges swear an oath to 'administer justice without respect to persons' and to 'do equal right to the poor and to the rich,' among other things."

If you want fairness for all, Long should be your candidate.

If you want liberal judicial bias, Senator Gillibrand is your candidate.

© Michael Gaynor

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Michael Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Michael Gaynor: Click here

More by this author

December 7, 2017
President Trump should privately consult Ed Rollins and appoint a new attorney general to supervise Special Counsel Mueller's investigation


December 6, 2017
Bad jury verdicts like the one that found Kate Steinle's death to be a tragic accident are shameless politicking


October 22, 2017
Sharon Waxman and Bill O'Reilly are both right. New York Times spikes legitimate exposes when they don't fit its business and/or political agendas


September 13, 2017
George Soros anointing Patrick Gaspard is bad news


August 17, 2017
Is the liberal media deliberately shilling for the far left or blinded by Trumpphobia to its misdeeds?


August 8, 2017
President Trump won't kowtow to or pay off North Korea


August 2, 2017
Tragically, aging and ailing Senator McCain teamed with "resist" Democrats and pro-Planned Parenthood nominal Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to prolong Obamacare and postpone Trumpcare


June 12, 2017
Senator Gillibrand is the reckless liar, not President Trump!


May 31, 2017
Does the price of the Murdochs owning Sky entirely include Sean Hannity leaving Fox News?


May 30, 2017
Will President Trump invoke the Bush Doctrine to eliminate the North Korean nuclear threat?


More articles