Post-Gazette Editorial – 11/15/06

This page was last updated on November 15, 2006.

Undue perks: The constitution is clear on compensation; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; November 15, 2006.

Rather than do a point-by-point critique of these editorials, I’ll just make a few comments.

As I read the editorial talking about the PA Supreme Court incorrectly interpreting the PA Constitution regarding legislator pay “despite the constitution’s plain English,” I got a chuckle. You see, at least when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court, the PG has a problem with nominees who are likely to interpret the Constitution based on “the constitution’s plain English.”

As a reminder, outlets like the PG usually don’t like conservative judges because they tend to believe they should interpret laws based on what the laws actually say, not what the judge would like them to say. That leads us to the 2005 nominations of “conservative” John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These were two nominees who expressed the opinion they were not lawmakers and laws should be interpreted based on what they actually said.

Regarding Chief Justice John Roberts, a PG editorial said that despite “misgivings” about Mr. Roberts, they weren’t “enough for a fight.” Later in the editorial you find the real reasons the PG didn’t call for a fight.

First, the editorial conceded it would be a “doomed battle” and “quixotic.” Second, the editorial felt fighting an unwinnable battle would squander “any semblance of fair play” and “would lessen the chances of winning the next battle.” Third, the editorial said it was OK not to fight because “Judge Roberts will be replacing the late Justice William H. Rehnquist -- a conservative for a conservative pretty much in the same mold.” To summarize, the PG chose not to fight Justice Roberts only because it would make the PG and its fellow travelers look bad and make it harder to be partisan during a future nomination.

Regarding Justice Samuel Alito, a PG editorial referred to Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) “shame” for voting for Alito’s confirmation. Toward the end of the editorial you find the PG’s apparent chief concern was with abortion and it feared Justice Alito would be a vote against it the next time an abortion case comes before the Supreme Court.

That the February 2006 editorial mentions abortion shows the hypocrisy of the PG. Nowhere in “the [U.S.] constitution’s plain English” is there anything remotely providing protection for abortion. Using the PG’s own words regarding legislative pay decisions, the abortion ruling was a “truly twisted decision.” Nevertheless, the PG opposed a nominee whose “plain English” reading of the Constitution could contribute to overturning a “truly twisted decision.”

This apparent contradiction is not really a contradiction at all for liberals. When the law says what you want it to say, then you interpret based on “the constitution’s plain English.” When the law doesn’t say what you want it to say, you treat the Constitution as a “living document” and interpret it based on what you want it to say. In both cases, you’re interpreting the law based on what you want it to say.