Bork does not seem to have actually followed that logic, regardless of what he preached.
In 1987 the Public Citizen Litigation Group published
an exhaustive report on Judge Bork’s judicial record:
I’m ignorant about PCLG, so I’m not sure about its biases.
But it’s possible PCLG is right. I haven’t examined Bork’s entire record, so I can’t say with confidence. But having read a few of his decisions a long time ago, I got the impression of judicial conservatism.
The Right on SCOTUS certainly is capable of hypocrisy. See Bush v Gore – not a model of judicial restraint.
Shouldn't a major principle of the highest judicial body in the land be to render decisions that improve things, rather than make them worse. Seems to me the Constitution was based on this principle.
This is probably a ten-hour conversation.
But I’ll try to distill my thoughts down.
It’s the job of government at large to improve things. SCOTUS is a component of government. The issue is how SCOTUS should function within that leviathan.
The Left prefers wise philosopher-kings on SCOTUS. The justices will dispense just, humane decisions based on what they feel is right. If necessary, be willing to deviate from legislative intent. I see the appeal. If you like right X, you’ll love it if a justice goes freelance and invents right X in the Constitution. But what if a justice invents right Y, which you detest? Without standards, SCOTUS jurisprudence becomes arbitrary rules subject to the whims of the five-justice majority.
The Right prefers a narrower function. As Justice Roberts says, he is there is call balls and strikes. Do the results suck sometimes. Yup. But being principled means you don't get to start with what you like and work backwards. The Constitution is an old document with good and bad ideas, and fails to provide rights that should be there. But I like a republican democracy. If we need a right, we should vote through the legislature, not find five people who will impose that right by fiat. In the long run, churning our controversies through the legislature is a healthier, stabler process for society to work out its conflicts and reach consensus.
That said, Keynes says we’re all dead in the long run. As I get older, I get a better appreciation of wanting to fix shit now, not later. Sometimes, I too want to chuck principles and simply go for results. I get it. I’m selfish and impatient. So, yeah, I can see why some prefer realpolitk pragmatism over philosophical ideals.
A quick story before I go. Years ago, I interviewed for a job as a law clerk with a Federal District Court judge. She said to me that she'd tell me how she wanted to rule on a motion. My job was to research and find the support for her decision. I thought, uh, isn't it supposed to be the other way around? Of course, I wanted the job and, being a chicken shit, didn't argue with her.
That experience has disillusioned me to this day.
(Full disclosure: I didn't get the job. So maybe I'm just bitter.)
ETA: Damn, it took me about two hours to write this. I know, I'm the slowest writer in the universe. I had intended to edit my novel. AW's PCE forum is the mob that keeps pulling me back, even though I'm trying to wean myself from it. I thought I was doing pretty good for a while...