"Even-Handed" Pundits Float Serenely Above Reality

Here's another example of why we left-wing blogofascists roll our eyes at most attempts by media pundits to be "even-handed" and "judicious." In the Washington Post, legal columnist Andrew Cohen writes about why the term "judicial activism" is fundamentally meaningless, serves entirely as a political cudgel, and ought to be retired. Which is fine, except that he frames the issue this way:

Another month, another kerfluffle over the phrase "judicial activism." Instead of accepting reality and conceding that it is a silly, pointless phrase not worthy of being defined or refined, the right and the left and the center this week find themselves fighting again over . . . nothing. These bozos would be better off (and so would we) if they just contemplated their navels for a few hours every day instead of endlessly fighting over this issue. "Judicial activism" means so many different things to so many different people that it means nothing at all. People just need to get over it.

In other words, rightwing activists create a totally bogus concept; rightwing politicians use it for decades to provide phony intellectual cover for attacks on judges who they consider excessively zealous in protecting the rights of women, racial minorities, consumers, and people in general; and in response, Andrew Cohen proclaims from Mount Olympus that both the right and the left are "bozos" for fighting over a "silly, pointless phrase."

This kind of "evenhandedness" basically amounts to scolding both the schoolyard bully and his victims--the bully for beating up the other kids, and the victims for violently attacking the bully's fists with their chins.

Tags: Andrew Cohen, judicial activism