The editorial board of the New York Times is thoroughly dishonest. I don't know why I bother to read its opinions. Take this opinion, for example. The board says that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is "eminently qualified" to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I agree. So why did the board oppose the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Were they not qualified? If not, why not? There is no pretense of principle here, only partisan hackery. "We like Sotomayor's values, so she belongs on the Court. We don't like Roberts's and Alito's values, so they don't belong on the Court." I'm trying to be charitable, but charity has limits. When the person to whom you're trying to be charitable is unprincipled and intellectually dishonest, about all you can do is say so.
Addendum: Here is a paragraph from the editorial opinion:
The term ["]judicial activism["] is of dubious meaning, at best, and is generally used by conservative Republicans to attack judges whose decisions they do not like. By the most common objective criteria—such as a willingness to strike down Congressional laws as unconstitutional—conservative justices are at least as activist as liberals.
Suppose Congress passed a law that prohibited redheads from attending church. By the editorial board's standard, if the Supreme Court struck down this law as unconstitutional, it would be engaged in judicial activism. Obviously, this is not what it means to be a judicial activist. Do the board members have brains?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 