Yglesias Falsely Credits White Supremacists With Inventing Judicial Activism
Matt Yglesias lamely attempts to tie conservatives to white supremacists:
I wish progressives wouldn’t be so defensive about this. The idea of an “activist judge” is something that was cooked up by white supremacists in the 1950s and 60s who didn’t like judges bossing people around and telling them they had to let black people vote and go to school. To me, frankly, it’s a bit shocking that modern-day conservatives are still so eager to associate themselves with the legacy of the racist backlash of a couple of generations ago.
Do I even have to explain why this feeble-minded sewage is so wrong?
Ugh, I suppose I do, for Matt’s sake.
White supremacists did not cook up the idea of an “activist judge,” or judicial activism. The concept was around earlier, but the term itself came from a January 1947 article in Fortune Magazine written by Arthur Schlesinger.
From California Law Review’s THE ORIGIN AND CURRENT MEANINGS OF “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM”:
Schlesinger’s article profiled all nine Supreme Court justices on the Court at that time and explained the alliances and divisions among them. The article characterized Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, and Rutlege as the “Judicial Activists” and Justices Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton as the “Champions of Self Restraint.” Justice Reed and Chief Justice Vinson comprised a middle group.
What’s even more fun is the article was about the New Deal - you know – one of Yglesias’ favorite pieces of legislation:
By 1947, none of the justices openly questioned the constitutionality of the New Deal. Instead, the Court split over the interpretation of legislation and “the proper function of the judiciary in a democracy.”
How ironic is it that the term “judicial activism” came about because, from the beginning, progressives have tried to change inconvenient laws to suit their paradigm. There is good reason progressives feel “defensive” about something so obviously unethical.
So judicial activism wasn’t invented by white supremacists – Matt will be very disappointed. He is either making this stuff up or repeating something he read/heard. But, again, the facts don’t matter much to progressive bloggers like Yglesias – it took me about 30 seconds to find the California Law Review paper.
Hmm… frankly, it’s a bit shocking, don’t you think?
