Talk Left gives us a blast from the past in which she argues with an Instapundit column and concedes that conservative judges may be good for privacy rights. I actually didn't see where in Glenn's column he really made that suggestion, although I have to admit I stumbled a bit when I read the word "un-freedom," but I'll get back to that in a minute.
Someone please explain to me how a dedication to the evisceration of established protections under the 4th amendment, as well as to trying to declare that the uteruses of more than half the population (the half that possesses them) public property, demonstrates an appreciation of privacy rights.
But, back to the Fox News Column. If we should have learned anything from the Trent Lott flap it's that not every restriction of the federal government's powers is good for individual liberty as Glenn suggests here. In any case, I think Reynolds is living in fantasy land if the "conservative" judges Bush is appointing are going to be against limiting state tort awards due to their principled devotion to federalism.