Upon learning of Justice Steven’s upcoming retirement, Roy Blunt couldn’t wait to be the first little GOPer on the block to twitter about his fear of the big, bad activist judges who harbor a secret yearning to usurp legislative prerogatives:
Justice Stevens is retiring. Obama should nominate a judge who won’t legislate from the bench and will interpret the Constitution strictly.
So what exactly does “strict construction” of the Constitution mean to Blunt and others speakers of the special GOP lingo?
Perhaps strict constructionism entailed using that dandy little tool, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, to protect George W. Bush from the will of Florida voters?
Or perhaps the Roberts court was engaging in strict constructionism when it decided to use the Citizens United case to overturn decades of established precedent, and undo carefully crafted legislation in order to give reliably GOP-friendly corporations a new constitutional right to use their billions to influence electoral politics?
Could of fooled me both times – and a whole caboodle of legal experts as well.
So maybe what we learn here is that for Republicans who relearned English at Frank Luntz’ knee, strict constructionism is really just judicial activism that the GOP likes?