Answer: Its own members. For years I have been railing against conservatives for eroding confidence in our judicial system by the constant litany of charging judges with being "activists," "following their own agenda," "legislating from the bench," "thwarting the will of the majority" and being "soft on crime."
They're catnip for commentators -- two dynasts announcing within two days. Except the differences far exceed the parallels -- one's a yellow-pad wonk related to a popular ex-POTUS who leads with 60 percent in Democratic polls. The other is a "Jar of Mayo" with 100 percent recognition yet only 10 percent in GOP polls. Lowry and Katrina debate why.
It's one of the Supreme Court's most famous, controversial and consequential decisions. On June 7, 1965, the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut struck down legislation prohibiting the use of contraceptives, relying in part upon a "right of privacy" that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.
The SCOTUS confirmation process has been dominated by extended, fruitless discussions of the supposed scourge of "judicial activism." At a time when the government is claiming unprecedented authority over our lives, we should shift the focus to the judiciary's critical role in protecting our constitutional rights.