When everyone and his brother thought that Hillary was going to win the 2016 election, a Harvard law professor (I forget which one) published a piece about how Hillary’s SCOTUS appointments could aggressively re-shape the law through a frankly unbridled use of judicial power. While it’s tempting to want to do the same thing now — only in a conservative direction — it’s a temptation we should avoid. Two of the most important principles of legal conservatism as I view it are (1) that courts in particular and law in general should remain independent of politics and political agendas; and (2) that courts should remain passive. That is, in a system of limited government, the courts wait for concrete disputes to be brought to them in the form of cases and controversies. Courts are in a sense shaped by politics, sure, because judges are nominated by the President and confirmed (or rejected) by the Senate. But courts are not and should not themselves become political actors.

We would do best to remain faithful to these principles. But that doesn’t mean we should do nothing. We can act in the political branches with a new-found and rare confidence that the Supreme Court will cast an approving eye when the inevitable challenges to conservative initiatives appear.

What I’m saying is not exactly revolutionary. It’s a slightly gussied-up version of an old idea: Strike while the iron is hot. It’s hot now, so let’s get moving.

[Read on for Bill’s proposed agenda. — Ed]