Linda Greenhouse revealing the essence of liberal jurisprudence

Linda Greenhouse writes about the Supreme Court and the American legal system at the New York Times. In that position, she has enormous clout when it comes to forming the liberal outlook on decisions by the Court and the essence of the disputes pending at SCOTUS. Today, she has written an article setting forth he views about the Arizona immigration statute and last weeks argument before the court. It is an amazing bit of writing for someone who supposedly knows how the law works and what the nature of Supreme Court arguments is.

The essence of Greenhouse's position is this: the Supreme Court never considered in the argument the overall effect of the statute on the illegal aliens in Arizona. Instead the Court focused on small issues like federalism and the pre-emption of state law by federal law. As a result, a "mean-spirited" law may survive when it ought to be struck down for its tragic impact on the illegal alien population.

Greenhouse's position is so off base that it is almost funny. Since it comes from such an influential source, however, maybe a better word than "funny" would be "scary". Greenhouse is arguing that the Justices should not look at the actual law and the Constitution in deciding whether or not the statute is proper. Instead, Greenhouse argues, the Justices should consider whether or not they like the outcome that the law imposes. Don't worry whether or not Arizona has the power under the Constitution to enforce a federal law; worry instead whether you think that the result of that enforcement is something that is desireable or "mean spirited".

Greenhouse is arguing for the Supreme Court to throw away centuries of jurisprudence which has established the proper role of the court. She wants to move instead to updating the Court so that it could star in a video called "Justices Run Wild". What is the point of having a Constitution that outlines the rights and powers of the people, states and federal government if that outline is to be ignored whenever the Justices or the liberal press want a specific outcome to be reached.

It is a sad thing to see someone in a position as important as Greenhouse holds arguing such a nonsensical position. It is worse still to see that the New York Times, which should and probably does know better, printing this trash. Sadly, most of the readers of the Times will not understand that this article is complete BS from the standpoint of anyone who understands the legal system. It would serve America well to educate people about the proper role of the Court, not to mislead them.