Repeating the phrase 'judicial activist' has been their only strategy for defeating supreme court judges for a very long time. You can look to Bush's arguments for Alito/Miers/Roberts, for example, and you will see that the argument was largely that they were *not* "judicial activists".
I don't think the argument is meant to score points with the general public. The general public really doesn't much care about the judicial philosophy of supreme court judges. I think the argument is meant to score points with the Republican base, especially since the Republicans know that the appointment of this particular pro-corporate centrist is going to go through. And with the Republican base "judicial activist" = someone who "created new rights with Roe v. Wade".
And in that context, connecting to Thrugood Marshall is no longer a random non sequitir.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-06-30 04:04 pm (UTC)I don't think the argument is meant to score points with the general public. The general public really doesn't much care about the judicial philosophy of supreme court judges. I think the argument is meant to score points with the Republican base, especially since the Republicans know that the appointment of this particular pro-corporate centrist is going to go through. And with the Republican base "judicial activist" = someone who "created new rights with Roe v. Wade".
And in that context, connecting to Thrugood Marshall is no longer a random non sequitir.