Posted on 07/05/2005 9:25:21 PM PDT by CHARLITE
I'm troubled by what I'm hearing from politicians -- on both sides -- concerning the type of person who should replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the process that should be followed to determine her replacement.
On "Fox News Sunday," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said, "Well, replacing a Supreme Court justice is very important, but they come and go. Really what I think is at stake is the reputation of the Senate. Can we have a confirmation process that will hold the Senate up to the world and the nation as a deliberative body made up of men and women who are serious about their job, or will it break down into some food fight?"
Meanwhile, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Republican Sen. Arlen Specter registered his annoyance at so-called public interest groups lobbying the president and the Senate. Specter said, "I believe that when you have these wars with the groups organizing and spending a lot of money and perhaps, for them, more importantly, raising a lot of money, that it's counterproductive and sometimes it's insulting."
Did you catch the common thread running through the senators' statements? It seems to be all about them -- the Senate, its reputation, its collegiality, its dignity. Likewise, the gang of 14 that banded together to block the Republicans' invocation of the constitutional option to end filibusters on judicial nominees appeared to be more interested in the Senate's image than in honoring the Constitution and their proper role in the confirmation process.
What narcissism! The composition of our appellate courts and the right of the president to appoint qualified judges is what is at stake here -- not whether the reputation of the Senate as a pristine body of backslapping, congenial good old boys emerges from the process.
I frankly don't care if the Senate engages in vigorous, even sometimes acrimonious debate, especially over something as important as Supreme Court nominees. Where did we get this wrongheaded idea that the senators' manners are more important than the positions they advocate?
Getting along and demonstrating mutual respect is fine, but not at the expense of the substantive issues involved. And, given the fact that so many of our politicians have turned the judicial confirmation process into a partisan circus, what business do they have complaining about the public lobbying them?
Have these people become so arrogant they think they should conduct Senate business as an end in itself: to make the Senate look wonderful, dignified and collegial -- and that "the people" should be denied even indirect access to their hallowed "deliberative" process?
If these pronouncements from Republicans weren't discouraging enough, we're hearing -- predictably -- far worse from Democrats. Notice the talking points emanating from Democrats and their liberal support groups designed to lay the groundwork to thwart the president's constitutional prerogative of selecting O'Connor's replacement.
They are saying the next justice must "embody the fundamental values of freedom, equality and fairness," be "someone who is in the broad constitutional mainstream" and "a consensus candidate, not an ideologue," and that in selecting the nominee, President Bush must employ the "Reagan Standard." Also, since O'Connor is the one retiring, not the more "conservative" (read: originalist) Rehnquist, the replacement must be in the judicial mold of O'Connor.
Every one of these ideas is alarmingly misguided. When liberals talk about "freedom, equality, and fairness," they're talking about a justice who will impose policies consistent with their ideas of freedom, equality and fairness rather than interpret the Constitution. To them, "freedom" means anything but freedom, "equality" means equality of outcomes rather than opportunity, and "fairness" means things like subordinating private property rights of individual citizens to the economic interests of more powerful commercial groups.
When they talk about a "consensus candidate" they mean someone who meets their standards of liberal judicial activism, or at the very least can be relied on not to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's also what they mean by the "Reagan Standard": someone like O'Connor, who will affirm Roe -- as if the avid, pro-life Reagan knew O'Connor would disappoint in that area.
Cutting through the euphemistic rhetoric, Democrat senators want you to believe that judicial appointees must not be constitutional originalists, because they consider any justice who eschews liberal judicial activism -- like Scalia and Thomas -- to be a right-wing extremist. Sadly, all too many Republican senators are not much better.
President Bush should appoint whomever he wants and he mustn't dilute his preference for the Scalia-Thomas model just because he is replacing the non-originalist O'Connor. The president was elected, among other things, on his promise to appoint constitutionalists to the bench. He has a right and duty to do so on every judicial appointment.
"They come and they go?" - what a condescending way to speak of lifetime appointees to the Supreme Court of the United States of America! That sounds like he's talking about employees at Kentucky Fried Chicken!
My dream nominees for Bush (assuming Rehnquist and Stevens step down/pass away):
J. Michael Luttig (replaces O'Connor)
Janice Rogers Brown (replaces Rehnquist)
Alberto Gonzalez (replaces Stevens)
Antonin Scalia promoted to Chief Justice
It would give us a block of Scalia, Thomas, Luttig, Brown that would vote together to uphold the Constitution; and the Gonzalez swing vote would sometimes side with us on upholding the Constitution. If Ginsberg steps down, then I hope Bush nominates John G. Roberts. Which would give us a 5 vote block that will secure Bush's legacy for decades.
Luttig will be nominated to be CJ. That way there will be one less battle, and he is young enough to remain there for years.
They seem to have so much on each other that they practice mutually assured destruction. That phony facade hides a multitude of sins.
After all that the Democrats have done how can they even pretend any kind of decorum at all. No one is playing "The Emperor's New Clothes" anymore. We all see them for what they are.
Did it ever occur to the Republicans that causing the Senate to disintegrate might be just what the left wants? It would give America a black eye and that is what the left likes. Look at this Gitmo stuff. Who is lying and spreading the lie to hurt America, then complaining about how it makes America look? Seems part of their plan to me.
As some wag said, when you wrestle with a pig you get muddy. I say jump right in the middle of it Republicans. You are going to end up muddy anyway but at least you will be muddy winners rather than filthy losers.
Luttig will be nominated to be CJ. That way there will be one less battle, and he is young enough to remain there for years.
I hear yall, I just think we should give props to Scalia, the father of the modern originalist movement.
What do you really expect?
And .. it's also rude because in truth "they come" but they don't "go" that quickly.
But .. this statement really got me, "... more interested in the Senate's image than in honoring the Constitution and their proper role in the confirmation process."
Just a bunch of preening primadonnas!
Well, as a Conservative Republican from South Carolina, I've got a news flash for "Leslie" Graham, you are going to find out that Senators " Come and Go" too, on your next reelection bid for office.
My deep apologies to the State of South Carolina, the Thurmond family and the country for voting for that little turncoat.
What I'm going to love is when Rehnquist retires, Bush can follow the democrats' preferred formula and follow the Reagan standard by elevating the most conservative member of the current court to Chief Justice and appoint an even more conservative justice in the open associate justice slot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.