There is a general trend in this society of distrust of experts, except when they are relied upon too much. Still, I respect the distrust, since they are often full of shit. And, this is a major pet peeve of mine. An example was a discussion aired on C-SPAN about judicial philosophy, in particular as applied to Judge Alito. Jonathan Turley, something of a libertarian, who wrote an article for Cato ridiculing the impressionist plurality opinion of Justice O'Connor in the Hamdi enemy detainee case (a sort of creative reading of the Constitution, and not in a good way), was wary of Alito.
He is too conservative, trusting the government too often, and (horrors) was a bit too much like O'Connor -- no clear judicial philosophy. You know, like Scalia -- perhaps the only one on the Court with one. In fact, Prof. Turley deemed this a requirement to be a good justice. This annoyed me. You might not like Justice O'Connor's philosophy, but she does have one -- a sort of minimalism with a clear conservative/state rights edge in various areas. She cut back habeas, joined Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment decisions to protect state power, and so forth. A middle of the road, common law approach, however, is not an absence of a philosophy. It is just one Prof. Turley does not quite like. Still, many justices have had it.
[One woman in defense of Alito corrected someone who cited the now infamous strip search case involving a mother and child. See, it was not really a Fourth Amendment case; it was an issue of qualified immunity. A clear attempt to cloud the issue, since Judge Chertoff spelled out that privacy related concerns that overlap with the Fourth Amendment were clearly at stake. OTOH, refreshingly, another panelist accepted Alito's conservative leanings -- after all, that is the right way to lean. Such willingness to argue from sound ground has often been lacking.]
Furthermore, it is patently ridiculous to suggest only Scalia has a clear philosophy. For instance, Justice Breyer surely does -- he has a book out ("Active Liberty") discussing it! Ditto Justice Stevens, etc. You might not LIKE their philosophies ... they might not support the "clear statement" rule -- even if the Constitution clearly does not so state -- of Justice Scalia, but this is quite different from not having a philosophy.
Also, how can one be a libertarian without supporting Roe? I assume that not allowing the state control personal choices involving personal fertility and one's own body with equal protection connotations is not really a libertarian concern. In what universe? At least, some libertarians are consistent -- they support Lochner and Roe. The sorts on this panel are not. I cannot take such people seriously. Oh, and are embryos now constitutional persons? What exactly is so wrong with Roe?
There also are various misunderstandings in respect to Lochner, actually. As the moderator suggested, wanting to work more than ten hours a day is not deemed horrible these days. Many people do it. The Lochner Court in fact later allowed the state to require time and a half when extra hours were required. The case, however, was a close one: 5-4. The Holmes Dissent is the usual cite, but the Harlan dissent is more promising. Justice Harlan was a general supporter of economic libertarianism. Nonetheless, he noted that the state had a reasonable health interest (as the Supreme Court accepted for mines and other dangerous professions) in limiting the hours of bakers -- such as the inhalation of dust and so forth. Still, the act clearly had some special interest aspects -- it appears to have been at least in part passed to benefit some bakers over others. A close case in a different era, its inherent wrongness has been exaggerated.
Anyway, as to being full of shit, the Republicans have left Congress open longer -- having a weekend session -- to be able to get more on the record. The Senate even cut into Book TV time on Saturday ... it seems more of the senators that staid on were Republican. Sen. Lindsey Graham was on board, for instance, to suggest the "abuse" of the detainees is being targeted with the proper peons being punished.
The BS here is that the true guilty parties are those who carried out a clear policy to allow such treatment and to further it. Likewise, we have the usual conservatives pushing for the Patriot Act renewal whining that the dissenters are dishonoring loyal hard working public servants by not trusting them not to break the law. Why have the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments then? Can't we just trust the government not to abuse their powers? Hey! Why are you laughing so hard?
And so it goes. Blah blah blah.