qué es un Juez Conservador?

Aclarando conceptos: qué se quiere decir cuando se dice que un juez es conservador?

What Is a Conservative Judge?

By Michael Kinsley
APR 12 2010, 11:29 AM ET

Supreme Court confirmations have become a festival of code words. One of the most confusing is "conservative." What is a conservative judge? In fact, this can mean three very different things.

• It can mean a strong belief in the principle of stare decisis, or respect for precedent. Problem: Does that mean that a conservative judge must rule in favor of upholding all of the liberal rulings of the 1960s and 1970s? Even though many of them overturned earlier precedents?

• Conservative can mean a narrow view of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights: Justices appointed for life should be modest in their ambitions. They should stick to the "original meaning" of the document, avoid "activism," and be slow to overturn the workings of the democratic branches. Problem: Many specific items on the conservative agenda violate this principle. Conservatives have been saying that judges or justices ought to overturn health care reform. They cheered when the court decimated the campaign spending laws. They want courts to outlaw affirmative action. They want to use the Fifth Amendment's ban on government taking "property" without due process of law, in order to forbid a wide variety of government activities.

• Conservative can mean simply judges who use their power to impose a conservative political agenda. Problem: This would be a gross violation of the other two alleged principles.

Another confusing word is "ideology." This can mean a political philosophy or a judicial philosophy. A judicial philosophy means a theory about how judges ought to go about deciding the big policy issues that come before them. A political philosophy is what you'd like them to decide. Conservatives believe that they have a coherent judicial philosophy and liberals either don't have one or ignore the one they have in favor of simply using judges to impose their political philosophy on an unwilling nation. They are giving themselves too much credit. They don't have one either. Words like "restraint" and "originalism" don't add up to a coherent judicial philosophy, let alone one that conservatives are willing to live by themselves.

Since they don't control Congress or the White House, conservatives are avoiding the term "conservative" as they gird for battle over a replacement for Justice Stevens. Instead they say "mainstream" or "centrist." But this resolves none of the contradictions in their general position on Supreme Court nominees. Do they want someone who respects precedent, or someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? Do they want an "originalist," or do they want to poison President Obama's health care victory? Do they really believe in "judicial restraint," or do they want "activism" in their own favor?

** Bonus

Lo que sigue debe ser citado:

Geraldina González de la Vega. La importancia de la presidencia de Barack Obama para la Constitución de Estados Unidos¨, Cuestiones Constitucionales No 21, julio - diciembre de 2009. IIJ-Unam. Pag. 418.

El debate sobre la interpretación constitucional en los Estados Unidos puede
dividirse en dos grandes grupos: interpretivism y non-interpretivism (que podrían traducirse como interpretación restringida o textual e interpretación extensiva o sobreinterpretación). Éstos dos modelos son cruzados transversalmente por el activismo y el self-restraint. Según J. Hart Ely en Democracy and Distrust, ésta dicotomía revuelve el clásico debate entre positivismo y iusnaturalismo, pues interpretivismo es casi lo mismo que positivismo, mientras que un acercamiento iusnaturalista, sería casi lo mismo que una interpretación extensiva. Esto quiere decir que no hay únicamente dos visiones encontradas, sino que, como las visiones políticas, la interpretación constitucional puede irse graduando dependiendo del enfoque y el activismo. Así se ha hablado sobre originalismo (Scalia), estricto construccionismo, textualismo, activismo, doctrina de la Constitución viviente (Posner o Tribe), etc. Con ésto quiero decir que un juez conservador no necesariamente es un juez que sostenga una interpretación textual y restringida, pues puede tratarse de un juez que quiera prohibir, por ejemplo, el matrimonio entre dos personas del mismo sexo, entonces interpretará la Constitución de manera extensiva (pues ésta no dice nada sobre el matrimonio) y por lo tanto estará expandiendo el contenido normativo de la Constitución, lo que puede calificarse de activismo judicial. Al revés, podría decirse del juez que expandiendo el contenido de la Constitución, interpreta de manera extensiva un artículo, por ejemplo, la enmienda XIV reconociendo en ésta el derecho de las mujeres a abortar. Así, un lado acusa al otro de ser activista y sobrepasar los límites marcados por el Constituyente, dependiendo de la filosofía de cada uno.