Two good editorials from the New York Times.
Yesterday, the NYT published some commentary on who the real activist judges were, and surprinsgly it's not those liberal judges that we keep hearing about. From the NYT:
Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?
One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more “liberal” – Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens – vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled “conservative” vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.
The second editorial was in today's paper relating to the jailing of Judith Miller, the NYT reporter who refused to provide details on her source to a special investigator. Quoting from the editorial:
She is surrendering her liberty in defense of a greater liberty, granted to a free press by the founding fathers so journalists can work on behalf of the public without fear of regulation or retaliation from any branch of government.
This is the crux of the issue, and as I commented on Layton's blog yesterday, it is what we (the public) should be most concerned about.
The editorial also provides a good summary of the case that has been the cause for Miller's confinement, and raises the question about Robert Novak's involvement, especially as the person who “broke” the story. All very intriguing, and as the NYT starts their editorial “This is a proud but awful moment for The New York Times and its employees.”