Judicial Activism, not so much.

Brendan posted about wacky responses to Justice Kennedy's opinion striking down the death penalty for juveniles. Today, Glenn Reynolds illustrates the inconsistency of the activist fringe of the Republican Party. He quoted an article by Jonathan Rauch:

Life is not the ultimate public value for most Americans. Law is.

Conservatives, of all people, should know this, because they have been saying it for years. More than four years before Schiavo, another difficult legal case transfixed the country. In Bush v. Gore, the outcome of the 2000 presidential race depended on Florida's disputed vote. Democrats, having narrowly lost in the initial tally, demanded manual recounts. In an election, they said, accurately determining the intent of the voters is surely the ultimate value. What could trump that?

Law, replied Republicans. They insisted that a fundamental principle was at stake. Florida's election statutes did not provide time or authority for manual recounts, they said; and if the rule of law means anything, it means not making up the rules as you go along.

In my opinion, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have the market cornered on reason and consistency. The traditionally Republican approach, which I would agree seems rooted in tough-love, hard and fast rules, is actually not so rational all of the time. Both sides are guilty of irrationally advancing ideological positions that law and tradition clearly undercut. For example, I'm curious to see how the Supreme Court rules in the medicinal marijuana case. Which ideological position is more important: the anti-marijuana position or the strong sense of federalist values? On the other hand, Democrats have trouble reconciling their ideological anti death-penalty and pro-choice positions.

It's just interesting to see some clearly incoherent arguments advanced under the guise of reason.