Timothy Sandefur Reviews David's Hammer by Clint Bolick

By Timothy Sandefur
October 02, 2007
In all the recent debates over “judicial activism,” Clint Bolick appears to be the only writer who begins by asking what the judiciary was actually designed to do. This is profoundly refreshing, given that both liberals and conservatives have embraced the slogan of “judicial restraint”—fashioned almost a century ago as part of the Progressives’s ultimately successful effort to remold the Constitution in the service of the administrative state. Th e one thing everyone knows about judges today is that they are “legislating from the bench,” imposing elitist liberal social theories on a captive populace in violation of democratic principle. Mark Levin’s Men in Black, and Robert Bork’s The Tempting of America are typical examples of this genre. Yet their interpretation reflects such a warped understanding of the Judiciary’s constitutional role, it is impossible to address the issue without starting, as Bolick does, at the beginning: with the Founders’ vision....