The GOP Shouldn’t Surrender on SCOTUS Fight

Human Events ^ | 4-16-10 | Gary Bauer

[Wolf13]

There are murmurs that some Senate Republicans may be reluctant to offer more than token opposition to whomever President Obama nominates to succeed John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are demanding a “thoughtful and civil” confirmation process, a standard that seems to surface only when Democratic presidents are doing the nominating.

But if Obama does what everyone knows he will do and nominates a liberal activist judge, Judiciary Republicans should approach their constitutional duty to advise and consent to the appointment of judges as if the future of the country depends on it – because it does.

They should ask tough and direct questions with language that everyday Americans can understand. And the questions should relate to the issues currently animating the electorate—health care, constitutional rights for terrorists and, yes, social issues.

Stevens told Obama that he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late June or early July. And the president has said he wants to move quickly to select and confirm his replacement.

It’s no wonder. A Rasmussen poll this week found that 39 percent of Americans believe the court is “too liberal,” while just 25 percent believe it’s “too conservative.” A protracted confirmation debate over what’s sure to be a liberal activist judge would only further alienate the millions of Americans already upset over the Democrats’ liberal activist agenda only months before a crucial election.

But it seems some Republicans are hesitant to fight. In a Time magazine piece this week titled “Why the GOP isn’t spoiling for a Supreme Court fight,” Mark Halperin reported that there was almost no talk of the coming court vacancy at last weekend’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference.

[BushCountry]

They bent over and grabbed their ankles on the Holder testimony, they’ll bend over here. For the most part they are spineless.

[oh8eleven]

I would put every Dem candidate through the same meat grinder the Libs used on Justice Thomas.

[Pontiac]

Judiciary Republicans should approach their constitutional duty to advise and consent to the appointment of judges as if the future of the country depends on it – because it does.

We should also say that the future of the Republican Party may depend on it as well.

Many loyal Republicans are becoming frustrated with the swishy Republicans currently holding office. We want representatives that will furiously defend the Constitution.

Let the Borking begin!

[gwilhelm56]

Do GOP Candidates have their Spine removed before or after their election??

[sickoflibs]

How about Republicans using filibuster in the Senate?? That seems the only option.

[edcoil]

They have a pretty good history of rolling over.

[Tanniker Smith]

Drag it out to the November elections.

[LurkLongley]

Call or email Orrin Hatch’s office. he is the ranking R on the Judiciary Committee. If my instincts are correct, I think that the Obamanator will go hard, hard left on this appointment, and the nation needs to see a stand up, knock-down fight over Constitutional principles in language that will sell on the news.

As someone else said earlier, let the Borking begin!

[Tanniker Smith]

My hope is that he goes with a "community organizer"/activist with no practical legal experience, just because he believes he can. I'd like him to pick someone so extreme that every Dem will have to think hard before supporting or defending.

The only problem with that is that spineless Pubbies might roll over and rubber stamp it.