The grandparents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in a plurality opinion written by Justice O'Connor and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, marveled at the audacity of the law under which the Superior Court elbowed aside the mother. O'Connor noted that even though no one had alleged that the mother was unfit, and even though she had not sought to end all visitation, not only did the Superior Court offer no deference to her preference, it placed upon her the burden of disproving the wisdom of the visitation arrangement the court preferred. That is an appalling justification for judicial usurpation of parental rights. However, Justice Scalia, dissenting, said there also was judicial presumptuousness in the Supreme Court's affirmation of parental liberty. He added that he does not believe federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures.
Most conservatives favor judicial restraint, but parental liberty, too.
They immediately applauded the ruling that evoked this dissent from Scalia. The astringency of his restraint calls the bluff of many conservative advocates of judicial restraint. JWR contributor George Will's column by clicking here.