Garrett

[David Bernstein]

Point taken.  Change that to "those conservatives who advocated "judicial
restraint" *without qualification* did so for political reasons."   Most
conservative academics (as opposed to politicians and polemicists), including
Bork in pre-pure populism days, acknowledged that the post-1937 New Deal
"restrained"  federalism cases like Wickard were at best troubling.  In
political rhetoric, however, things were not quite so targeted and and
context-specific. When I was in law school, you still heard some
conservatives express their admiration for Frankfurter, who was no
conservative!

In a message dated 2/21/01 8:24:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kewhitt at PRINCETON.EDU writes:

<<
 David Bernstein wrote:

 > It was manifestly clear to during the 70s and 80s that those conservatives
 > who advocated "judicial restraint" did so for political reasons to try to
 > restrain the Warren and Burger Courts, not because there is anything
 > "conservative" about allowing popular majorities to do whatever they
please,
 > regardless of what the Constitution says.

 I think this may be overstated.  The call for judicial restraint was sincere
and
 not merely "political," but it was also targeted and context-specific. >>