Democrats March to War!

Last week Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired from the bench and already the democrats are preparing for war. Already, democrats are dropping the f-bomb (filibuster) and have sworn to defeat a nominee who hasn’t even been named. Never mind democratic senators pledged not two months ago never to filibuster judicial nominees, lest the Republicans go nuclear. Never mind Republican senators approved nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer some ten years ago by wide margins and without a single hurdle, lest the democrats do the same to their nominees once a Republican occupied the White House. Of course, this behavior from the democrats should come merely as par for the course and is nothing new from this sore, bitter, rancorous, and hateful party. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the democrats need to MoveOn.

The democrats warn President Bush (at least they’re finally calling him “President” now) against appointing an “extremist” to the Supreme Court. By “extremist” they mean an anti-communist who won’t legislate from the bench and doesn’t think the Constitution is anything they write on a piece of paper. An extremist is someone not endorsed by the ACLU, MoveOn.org, the Alliance for Justice, NAMBLA, the Workers’ World Party, and the European Union. An extremist is someone who bases their decisions on important legal issues on the Constitution and not on “international law.” An extremist balances their legal views on those held by the founding fathers and doesn’t ask “What Would Belgium Do?” A democrat’s extremist can be found in the American mainstream.

Then again, the warning against appointing extremists to the Supreme Court is a valid one. After all, Republican presidents have time and again appointed some of the worst, most extreme members in the history of the Court. It was President Eisenhower who appointed Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart. It was Richard Nixon who appointed Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun. It was Gerald Ford who appointed John Paul Stevens. It was Ronald Reagan who appointed Anthony Kennedy. And it was George Bush the Elder who appointed David Souter. Yes, President Bush should be warned against appointing extremists such as these to the Court.

Given the recent lunacy of the Court in morphing the Constitution to serve the very same extreme left-wing agenda that has been defeated three times at the ballot box since 2000, a new breed of judicial nominee is needed. Perhaps not so much someone who can turn back the tide of left-wing judicial activism as much as stop it in its tracks. To be sure, the kind of conservative judicial activism perhaps advocated by social conservatives, theocrats, and the Constitution Party should also be avoided. What is needed is a judicial conservative- a strict constructionist who recognizes the Constitution for what it is, not what their ideology, left or right, would want it to be- as opposed to a judicial liberal- an activist who uses their ideology, left or right, to morph the Constitution to fit their agenda.

Speaking of what the Constitution says, the document states the President- and not a gang of seven Senate moderates, five northeast liberals, a drunk driving murderer, and a former Klansman- has the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Article II, Section 2 gives the President the power to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court.” Nowhere does it mention a body of seven liberals and seven moderate collaborators. Nowhere does it mention blocks in the Judiciary Committee. Nowhere does it mention judicial filibusters, and nowhere does it mention that appointees must pass with three-fifths or two-thirds majorities. A Supreme Court nominee is not a constitutional amendment or a treaty. “Advice and Consent” means a majority vote and is something all nominees are entitled to, even- as Republicans demonstrated- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. However, the democrats will still be counted on to break the rules and their own agreements to express both their hatred of President Bush and all connected to him as well as their unrelenting sourness and bitterness over their repeated defeats at the ballot box.