An epithet is “a characterizing word or phrase firmly associated with a person or thing and often used in place of an actual name, title, or the like,” and I had to love Jennifer Rubin’s implicit proposal for a new epithet:
Reversing 48-year-old precedent and stripping women of autonomy over their own lives would certainly put an end to the fiction that right-wing judges are “originalists” seeking intended textual meaning and relying on precedent to ensure credibility and legal stability. The only thing that would have changed over nearly five decades: A president elected with less than 50 percent of the popular vote nominated to the court preselected judges who had already made their views on abortion known. They were then confirmed with the help of red-state senators representing many fewer voters than blue-state senators. Overturning abortion rights after nearly half a century would be the exercise of raw political power, showing that judges act as policy handmaidens, not stewards of the Constitution. At least the intellectual and moral preening from Federalist Society folks would end. This would be results-oriented judging — “fixing” — of the most blatant kind. [WaPo]
Neil Gorsuch, Policy Handmaiden. Yeah, I like that. I may have to retire Illicit Justice in favor of Policy Handmaiden, depending on how Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is decided.
