Sometime in the near future Mr. Obama will be nominating a Supreme Court Justice to take the vacancy left by Justice Stevens. Once again you'll be hearing all the malarkey about conservative and liberal justices. What you'll hear is that conservative justices call balls and strikes and merely carry out the meaning of the constitution. On the other hand, those liberals will be making the law, fueled by their own value judgments.
Whatever your ideology, whenever you hear either of those mantras, make certain you understand that what you're getting is largely bullshit. Both conservative and liberal courts have their own values and perspectives and you can draw some pretty clear expectations from them.
I was delighted this morning to see Geoffrey Stone's article in the Op/Ed pages of the NYTimes. He clarified the issues historically and ideologically, and you'll want to study, perhaps download his article for future reference.
Here's his summary:
Conservative judges tend (the operative term is "tend") to exercise their power to invalidate laws that disadvantage corporations, business interests, the wealthy and other powerful interests in society. They employ judicial review to protect the powerful rather than the powerless.
Liberal judges tend (again, the operative term is "tend") to exercise their power to invalidate laws that disadvantage racial and religious minorities, political dissenters, people accused of crimes and others who are unlikely to have their interests fully and fairly considered by the majority. They employ judicial review to protect the powerless rather than the powerful.
You can expect the discussion of "empathy" to enter into the fray also. Conservatives will criticize the notion that empathy will make for a better judge. Liberals won't discuss the issue much, but they believe largely believe in the notion of empathy. The issue needs to be discussed and the real alternatives put on the table, but the conservatives currently hold the position of god on the issue of empathy. It was a matter of poor public relations on the part of the Democrats.
You can also expect a lot of baloney about the "original documents" from Scalia and those of his ilk. We put an end to the validity of those same discussions regarding the nature of the biblical materials early in the 20th century. It's an accepted fact by social scientists (of course, you realize that social scientists are hated for that reason and a few others) that there is no such thing as a purely objective perspective. Like it or not we all bring our background to any interpretation or decision.
Here's the frustrating problem. None of these positions is completely true or completely false. The context has a huge part to play in making decisions. Enjoy your summer!