Rehnquist defined the term "strict constructionist" for [President Nixon's] edification: A judge who is a "strict constructionist" in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs—the latter two groups having been the principal beneficiaries of the Supreme Court's "broad constructionist" reading of the Constitution.
I see.
Well, that explains much about the Rehnquist Court, doesn't it? It doesn't matter if a criminal defendant or civil rights plaintiff should win based on the merits of a case; it only matters that, under strict constructionist views, they don't win.
That also explains the questioning that goes on in the case discussed in this article, in which the actual case is entirely irrelevant to anything the justices are thinking. It's slmost certainly going to be a 5-4 decision, and at this point, it looks to be in favor of Waffle House, decided on principles that have nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the case at hand.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!