Sir, - I refer to Mr Richard Humphreys's review of my book, AJudgment too Far?: Judicial Activism and the Constitution (Books, April13th). The gist of the review, in which a large number of assertionswere supported by little argument, was that I was a conservative sortof animal and so took as my "starting point" the proposition that thehigher judiciary suffers from "an apparently anti-executive attitude".
This is a travesty. I started out with no preconceptions but rather,after watching the developing judicial review scene over the pastquarter-century, wrote a short book (which often takes more time andthought than a long one) to discuss such questions as: What values dothe higher judges draw upon? How should judges be selected? Is itappropriate to use the same procedure for deciding theconstitutionality of a tax law as for whether a driver is negligent?Has judicial review been good for the polity?
My answer to the last question was not a diatribe. Instead, Ireplied: "Some good (especially the present Supreme Court); some bad;some middling". But it seems that, as Oscar Wilde more or less said, toa true believer, one should only praise the judiciary, provided thepraise is gross enough.
Incidentally, one gets a clue to Mr Humphreys's own starting pointfrom his reverent references to "the inherent natural rights of theindividual". And: "Human rights are universal and indivisible". Onemight reply: "Agreed, but who decides on what they are; how and in whatcontext?" But debating with a believer is always unrewarding.
Mr Humphreys (a distinguished constitutional commentator) and Imight at least agree that, whatever about this particular book (whichwas intended to be the first rather than the last word on the topic),this subject- area warrants more space than the meagre 400 words intowhich your reviewer was required to wedge his thoughts. - Yours, etc.,
Prof DAVID GWYNN
MORGAN,
Department of Law,
University College Cork.