The Supremes v. everyone

We're told when we're young that anyone can grow up to be president. Which is pretty cool, I guess. But nowadays, if you want to make a difference, abandon all aspirations for the White House and embrace the awesome power of a U.S. court justice.\nThis was a gigantic year for courts, especially for the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supremes spoke loudly that they want to play a very important role in not only the way the government functions but in the lives of ordinary American people.\nAnd that's nothing entirely new, but some question if that's really their job. This current Court has taken flak from both the left and from the right as being too much of an "activist court."\nOver the course of the year, they overturned laws which criminalized sodomy, ruled that intimidating cross-burning and unregulated campaign contributions were not free speech, upheld affirmative action in higher education, and said the government can filter computers in public libraries to block Internet porn.\nSoon they'll decide the fate of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, whether the Americans with Disabilities Act covers drug addicts and if public-funded scholarships can be used for religious educations. \nAll of this and you still have to wonder: do they ever have trouble choosing a restaurant for dinner? Does it ever come down to a sharply divided 5-4 vote in favor of Steak 'n' Shake?\nCritics who cry "Activism!" are often people who believe courts are legislating instead of interpreting issues that voters should decide, unless those critics agree with the court's opinion, in which case they believe voters are too uninformed to decide the issue.\n"Oh, those judges are just so biased! Why won't they do their jobs? They're horrible! Why can't they just be impartial?" critics sneer, without the least bit of irony.\nI'll give you an example. The right-wing believes Roe v. Wade was a judicial activist travesty, and the left-wing believes Bush v. Gore was a judicial activist travesty. You get the idea.\nI'm typically okay with judicial activism. I realize judges can have opinions, and they should. Impartiality looks great on paper, but it's very impractical. Jurists are people, and people have opinions. You can't switch that capacity on or off.\nThere's also a tendency to want complete impartiality in journalism. Leonard Downie, executive editor for the Washington Post, wrote before the 2000 election on the Post's op-ed page that not only does he never vote, he doesn't even allow himself to consider whom he would vote for. \nI suppose he does that in the interest of being fair, but I also suppose he's a moron. There's a huge difference between having an opinion and being biased, and if he thinks by not voting, or consciously avoiding the issue he'll rid himself of opinions, then I wonder how a guy like that rose to the position of executive editor for the Washington Post.\n The crucial traits that make for a great jurist or journalist should include free-thinking opinion formations and participations in elections. I want someone in a black robe that will grow and evolve with the job and the times. \nNo doubt it'd be easier to withhold opinions and pretend not to have any, but that makes me trust them even less than if they'd just fully disclose themselves and allow us to decide for ourselves.\nWe should be cautious of judges who seem to be inherently biased and on a judicial crusade, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into wanting our justices to be void of all political opinions. Contrary to Mr. Downie, I imagine they vote in elections just like other citizens. And if not, what business do they have deciding gigantic cases.