Lithwick has a new Slate article subtitled “Why does John Roberts hate courts so much?” which concludes, based on the left-wing Alliance For Justice’s report on Roberts, that his judicial restraint philosophy amounts to preventing the courts from administering justice.

I’m no expert on the subject, but Roberts’ positions seem reasonable, or at least defensible, to me.

Lithwick says:

Judicial restraint isn’t an end in itself. The end in itself should be doing justice, and sometimes that means listening to the whiny masses, one case at a time.

I wonder why Lithwick doesn’t think the “whiny masses” should affect the law (and, thus, achieve justice) via voting for representatitives as our system intends, rather than having some judges’ idea of “doing justice” imposed on them.

Given Lithwick’s earlier tone-deaf, humor-impaired article about Roberts and women, I have to wonder if it’s the content of his positions, or just the fact that he’s a conservative that Lithwick really objects to.