Naturally, the editors of the New York Times loved former justice David Souter’s attack on judicial conservatives. Equally naturally, they neither offer any defense of his comments against cogent criticisms nor mention those criticisms: Times editorialists are masters of asserting opinions without trifling to supply arguments.
The opening lines seem especially ill-chosen: “Two recent moments have brought to mind Chief Justice John Roberts’s simplistic description of a Supreme Court justice as an umpire who confines himself to calling balls and strikes. The first was the reminder in Detroit on Wednesday night that umpires are highly fallible, and their calls subjective, even when something as important as Armando Galarraga’s nearly perfect game is at stake.”
So: Umpires are fallible, therefore they should start taking sides?