Yeahman
07-06-2007, 06:58 AM
Supreme success (http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9441511)
Liberals have often failed to build public support for their beliefs: why bother to persuade people when you can rely on activist judges? They have also become the prisoners of a purism that compels them to take beliefs to their logical conclusion even if the consequence is to offend ordinary voters (support for a woman's right to choose becomes support for abortion up to the moment of delivery).
...
The Roberts court could well prevent liberal America from indulging in yet another self-damaging act of judicial overreach—discovering a constitutional right to gay marriage (something Massachusetts's highest court has already done). Sensible gay-marriage advocates will now concentrate on winning their battles in the court of public opinion and the chambers of the legislature. Which, surely, is how it should be.
...
The court could even force liberals to rediscover the lost art of popular persuasion. And it will force them to be more imaginative in advancing their core ideas. Its prejudice against race-based affirmative action will force the left to think of better ways of dealing with poverty. Liberals might experiment with income-based affirmative action, for example, or with vouchers that give more money to the poor. All of which might do liberalism more good than harm.
Liberals have often failed to build public support for their beliefs: why bother to persuade people when you can rely on activist judges? They have also become the prisoners of a purism that compels them to take beliefs to their logical conclusion even if the consequence is to offend ordinary voters (support for a woman's right to choose becomes support for abortion up to the moment of delivery).
...
The Roberts court could well prevent liberal America from indulging in yet another self-damaging act of judicial overreach—discovering a constitutional right to gay marriage (something Massachusetts's highest court has already done). Sensible gay-marriage advocates will now concentrate on winning their battles in the court of public opinion and the chambers of the legislature. Which, surely, is how it should be.
...
The court could even force liberals to rediscover the lost art of popular persuasion. And it will force them to be more imaginative in advancing their core ideas. Its prejudice against race-based affirmative action will force the left to think of better ways of dealing with poverty. Liberals might experiment with income-based affirmative action, for example, or with vouchers that give more money to the poor. All of which might do liberalism more good than harm.