The observer I write of is a liberal, even though he is very bright and has been extensively educated (Yale, Rhodes scholar, Supreme Court clerk). What brought him to utter despair was the nomination a fortnight ago of Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. What is wrong here, in his view, is the following:
Now the point the critic here makes is sophisticated. He uses the term "ideologue" as pejorative. And in this, in the judgment of many conservatives, he is correct. The late scholar and author Russell Kirk scorned the ideologue, as did the political philosopher Eric Voegelin. For them, as for many other conservatives, the ideologue refuses to sway from his adamantine course by taking into account experience and reason. By such rigidity, if shown in assessing judicial questions, he becomes something of an automaton, and the court becomes a sorting house of conflicting automatons, and the judicial spirit atrophies.
Now the argument against ideologues is raised at a moment in the Supreme Court's history in which the term "judicial activism" is invoked often to cloak sheer ideological orthodoxy. The most illuminating example here is abortion. Continued...
William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor-at-large of National Review, the prolific author of Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography.
Be the first to read William Buckley's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.