Recently, the editorial board made a shortsighted defense of judicial activism, citing the good judgment of Justice Robert Crowley in sentencing a drunk boater to jail time for a life-taking accident.

With sentencing guidelines providing minimum and maximum punishments, I hardly see how his choosing an intermediate penalty amounts to activism, as the editorial implied.

This year, the United States Supreme Court prohibited the death penalty as punishment for raping children, citing a “national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.” This consensus was chimerical – Barack Obama and John McCain, fearing the voters’ wrath, scrambled to be first to denounce the decision, and Congress had just recently authorized the death penalty for child rapists under military law. Surely the justices should cite some proof, beyond their own personal opinions? Their lack of modesty in this case is a real example of judicial activism.

There are many bad laws the Constitution doesn’t prohibit, and many good laws it doesn’t require. The Constitution is silent on abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty and many other policy questions. Since it’s the court’s job to interpret the Constitution, they should refrain from intervening when not explicitly required to by its text.

Composed of nine judges, appointed for life, the Supreme Court is the least democratic branch of federal government. Since the courts wield such final and unchecked power, I prefer originalists, who meet subjectivities and choose caution, over the activists who choose to implement their own vision.

Dana Coffin, Auburn