The Right's Supreme Court Acquiescence

The Weekly Standard ^ | May 16, 2010 | Jim Prevor

[JimPrevor]

From a purely tactical stand-point, the implications of what Estrada is saying are obvious: If the Democrats block nominees on ideological grounds -- as they did with Estrada -- and the Republicans rely on traditional credentials, eschewing ideology, we will wind up with a court of well-credentialed liberals.

[JimPrevor]

...there is no heroism in simply surrendering the Supreme Court to the left, which is the practical implication of Miguel Estrada’s letter.

[paul51]

it's hard to stomach the GOP’s routine refusal to block these leftist extremists on strictly ideological grounds. In this case, additionally they have someone that has never been a judge yet they swoon. Can't understand it.

[skookum55]

The big problem with respecting the prerogative of a leftist president to appoint leftist justices is that leftist justices, like leftist presidents, do not respect our Constitution — they somehow believe they have the authority to amend our Constitution.

[Secret Agent Man]

And right now, Kagan is clearly one candidate that you can make a strong case for, for being unqualified to be on the SCOTUS. If you can’t make a case she isn’t good enough, who isn’t qualified?

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

The problem goes deeper than just the fight over Supreme Court nominations.

When there are unprincipled people, without integrity, who do not really respect the Constitution or traditional American values, in control of the executive branch, the legislative branch, and nearly the judicial branch, then even the expertly-designed separation of powers and checks and balances built into our constitutional system are insufficient.

When statist tyrants, who see themselves as benevolent “progressives” pushing forward a reluctant American people, achieve hegemony over the government power, the Constitution itself becomes a mere historical paper upon which semantical games are played.

Reagan was fond of pointing out that the Soviet Constitution contained all sorts of wonderful-sounding supposed rights, but they were meaningless when the government had all of the power and the people had none.