Democracy's Crumbling Ediface

Okay. This morning Judge Roberts began his reign by snorfling about in the doings of a free people, 4,000 miles removed, who have reached a democratic consensus pertaining to issues directly touching their own felicity (NYT):

Voters in Oregon have twice endorsed doctor-assisted suicide, but the Bush administration has aggressively challenged the state law, the only one of its kind in the nation.

The precedent, should it be consulted, is clear: the federal government has previously exerted its power to quash the decision of Californians (by popular referendum) to permit the cultivation, sale and possession of marijuana. The outlook is grim for those already living a grim existence on the precipice of the undiscovered country in the Pacific Northwest.

The chorus of Conservative voices decrying the practice of "legislating from the bench" are less troublesome for what they advocate than for what they abdicate: fidelity to the principles of democracy. The Republican lock on power has resulted in a predictable departure from the animating precepts behind all the successful revolutions throughout history (be they civil or criminal, ecclesiastic or secular) - the ability to choose one's own master. The allegiance of GOP partisans is not to the concept of freedom (so cheapened and debased of late by their venal misappropriation of it); rather, it lies in a commitment to force the masses to comply with their own vision of a morally superior society.

This betrayal of their true intentions has been made glaringly apparent in the near unanimous rejection by Conservative punditry of Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers. Were they genuinely interested in disinterested judges who refrained from consulting their "personal" opinions when reviewing precedents and laws, Ms. Meirs' decided lack of views would scarcely merit so much as a peep of protest. Further showing their hand, and their like contempt for democracy, George Will, ever the faux classicist and flatulent rube, buries his monarchic sentiments in his own stinging rebuke of Heir Bush:

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. […] Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."

Not only is the very idea of representation "tawdry", but the judiciary is – by default – an institution which should be protected from the corrupting influence of democracy. Make no mistake: this is about abortion. George Will is clearly stating that that it is "intellectually disreputable" to argue that women should have proportionate power in deciding issues which relate directly, specifically, and exclusively to women. Why? Well, because it's judges we're talking about.