If you want to know . . .

what a conservative is up to, listen to what he's saying while he's pointing at someone else.

Here's a post by Jack Balkin on a recent WSJ OpEd about the courts and the election. The OpEd is basically a scare piece about how the Democrats will pack the courts with judges that will destroy our constitutional republic. The opening paragraphs of the OpEd sort of spell it out:

The conservative movement has made enormous gains over the past three decades in restoring constitutional government. The Roberts Supreme Court shows every sign of building on these gains.

Yet the gulf between Democratic and Republican approaches to constitutional law and the role of the federal courts is greater than at any time since the New Deal. With a Democratic Senate, Democratic presidents would be able to confirm adherents of the theory of the "Living Constitution" -- in essence empowering judges to update the Constitution to advance their own conception of a better world. This would threaten the jurisprudential gains of the past three decades, and provide new impetus to judicial activism of a kind not seen since the 1960s.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about the Republicans.

Given that the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have become political forums, I think Balkin's contention that it's merely a matter of "a choice between liberal and conservative interpretations of the Constitution" is probably correct but doesn't go far enough. (Although I have to say his post is a nice, polite exercise in calling "bullshit" on these guys.)

If you read this piece carefully, it's obvious that what's at stake here is the whole Republican stranglehold on the government:

With many more Republican senators up for re-election than Democrats, the nomination of Mr. Romney could easily lead to a Goldwater-like debacle, in which the GOP loses not only the White House but also its ability in practice to filibuster in the Senate.

Not as long as Harry Reid is majority leader. Seriously, though, snark aside, it's an open admission that the Republicans have no interest in compromise or any real bipartisan efforts to heal the country from the damage done by BushCo -- gods forbid they should lose their power to paralyze the Senate. (Of course, this is the Wall Street Journal, with a constituency composed of those who have benefitted most from Bush's policies.)

And the Roberts court is well on the way to rolling back the basic law supporting individual rights in favor of advancing a series of decision that gives primacy to the rights of powerful institutions. That's the Republican agenda. The whole idea that the Democrats are making an all-out assault on the Constitution is ridiculous on its face. The administration, the Congress, and the courts under Bush have already done enough damage, thank you. As Balkin notes:

From my perspective, at least, there is no small irony in Calabresi and McGinnis' call for restoring constitutional government, given the activities of the current occupant of the White House; if anyone has made constitutional restoration necessary, it is not the demon liberals but George W. Bush.

He's being much too nice about it.