The morning after

Yesterday, I predicted how Barack Obama would react to the California Supreme Court’s decision finding a constitutional right to gay marriage. I also considered how the MSM would treat the poltical implications of the decision. Finally, I noted the tension between the California decision and claims by MSM legal commentators that judicial activism is largely a myth.

Obama issued a statement on the court’s ruling this morning. My prediction (assisted by Bill Otis) was on-target. Obama said he believes same-sex couples “should enjoy equal rights under the law,” that he “will continue to fight for civil unions as President,” that he “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court,” and that he “continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”

My prediction regarding the MSM was also accurate, at least if the New York Times is any indication. The Times’ account opens by stating that McCain’s views on gay marriage are identical to Obama’s. The Times ignores the key point here — McCain promises to nominate judges who will exercise restraint when it comes to imposing their policy preferences; Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists to the Supreme Court. The Times understands, but conceals, the likelihood that McCain’s judicial nominees and Obama’s judicial nominees would take very different approaches to issues like the one decided yesterday in California.

The Times goes on to argue that the gay marriage issue will either amount to nothing or will be a net minus for Republicans. That certainly will be the case if the Times has anything to say about the outcome. If the MSM is unable to hide the ball, the result may well be different.

Finally, Dahlia Lithwick presses on with the liberal MSM’s mantra that judicial activism is “an empty label.” Ed Whelan does an effective job of demonstrating her “confusion.”

Responses

Books to read from Power Line