I think if you would talk to liberals “off the record”, they would acknowledge they are rather befuddled by the Gableman victory. In the past few years two highly unqualified, yet conservative judges have won , while their liberal counterparts have lost.
The irony in this past election is that while Gableman attacked Butler as an activist judge, it was Gableman’s judicial activism that won him the seat. Certainly calling state statues, the constitution, and court precedents loopholes is not the making of a strict constructionist.
No, Gableman is a conservative of a different breed. We could very rightly call him a “conservative activist judge” which on a drunken bar stool I am sure he would acknowledge. In many ways its the liberals who do not get it. Gableman and his WMC, and his Right to Life get the instrumental and political nature of the Supreme Court. He clearly understands he is there to protect corporations from government excess, and be there to make abortion a crime when the time comes. In the end precedence, state statues, and the constitution, are simply tools to an end.
Clearly we all understand this. If its the WMC board member, Right to Life zealot, liberal or conservative voter we all know irregardless of Gableman’s judicial philosophy why he is on the court. Liberals need to wake up from their “post ideological” fantasy land and make an instrumental case for a liberal Supreme Court justice.
Who or what will this liberal Supreme Court justice protect? Will it protect the rights of citizens from coercive government and corporate power? Will it protect unions as the democratic outlet in the economic sphere? Will it protect our civil liberties embedded in state and federal constitutions?
Liberals need to realize what conservatives have known for some time now, the Supreme Court is a firewall. I may want different things protected than the conservatives, but in the end I still want my firewall.