He writes it in his own sublime voice of course, but Charles Krauthammer has clearly signed on for an endorsement of Levine's Second Rule of Law: "Clarity and consistency in judicial opinions are paramount above all else."
He even agrees with your humble blogger that a consistently liberal Supreme Court is preferable to one populated by habitual "Second Rule" offenders such as O'Connor and Kennedy.
As one critic said of O'Connor:
"When it came to religious liberty, every case was in doubt until the moment Justice O'Connor voted because even her own precedents could not predict the outcome of new cases. That's amazingly counterproductive for a nation that believes in the rule of law. Her approach to religion law questions made everything turn on what an imaginary 'objective observer' would think. But there was no way to know what this imaginary person would think until Justice O'Connor imagined it. . . . Her approach made everything a matter of her subjective judgment and that's not why we have a Constitution. Although she was well-intentioned, she was slowly but surely reinventing monarchy."Posted by Justin Levine at July 14, 2005 10:20 PM | TrackBack