Surprise, surprise: the New York Times doesn’t approve of one of Bush’s “ideologically motivated” judicial nominees. They criticize the nominee’s refusal to adhere to modern legal tradition—namely, the tradition holding that the state is the wellspring of human progress—and for having the audacity to suggest that “well-intentioned” government initiatives Social Security, labor legislation, and anti-discrimination laws may not, in fact, have been the greatest ideas in the history of human civilization. It’s refreshing to see a court nominee whose conception of “rights” is couched in terms of what one can’t legitimately do to another.
