Random Thoughts From A Less-Than-Brilliant Ideologue

I ran across this peculiar line in a Dallas Morning News editorial today:

It is extremely unlikely that, say, a brilliant ideologue like Justice Antonin Scalia could make it through Senate confirmation today.

A brilliant ideologue?

Clearly, Justices Scalia and Thomas are the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court. And Scalia is regarded by most Court watchers as a significant intellect.

But does the fact he’s a brilliant conservative jurist make him an ideologue?

And if so, why do we rarely see references to the “brilliant Progressive ideologue Oliver Wendell Holmes” (whose dissent in Lochner always has praise heaped on it, despite the fact that it was largely beside the point in terms of the actual case and case precedent at hand at the time, and was itself intended to serve as a guidepost for future justices)?

Maybe in the world of all-knowing newspaper editors, anybody outside what they consider the mainstream is just an “ideologue” to be dismissed. That attitude might not be the healthiest one for a Belo newspaper (or our local one), and it’s just peculiar that we’ve reached a point in the discourse when conservatives, no matter their credentials or intellect, are simply dismissed as ideologues. Maybe some of them (*shock*) are truth-seeking folks guided by a philosophy, not unlike the fine truth-seeking folks in journalism. At least those who work places other than 60 Minutes.

Maybe?