HERE COME DA' JUDGE
By Ron Marr (07/07/05)
I'm not sure why Republican presidents have such a sorry track record when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices. Reagan may have given us Antonin Scalia, but he also gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. These one-time, alleged conservatives switch sides with the wind, juggling any sort of consistent or firm conviction as if it were a red hot coal. Bush 41 might have given us Clarence Thomas, but he also gave us David Souter, a guy who I'm pretty sure has a poster of Michael Moore on his bedroom wall. Gerald Ford, proving that he had less skill in picking judges than he did in golf, saddled the nation with John Paul Stevens.
By all rights the Red States should own the Supreme Court. Of the current nine justices only three (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) can be counted on to uphold the rights of the individual over the rights of the state. Five of the remaining six (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens) tend do just the opposite. O'Connor, for whatever reasons, vacillates like a crazed metronome. It's insane to think that four of those lefties were appointed by Republicans, appointed in large part as an olive branch to Democrats in Congress, appointed to avoid an ugly fight over confirmation. Because Republican presidents sought to seek consensus with Democrats by nominating "moderate" judges, we are now forced to contend with a Supreme Court whose rulings treat the Constitution as an outdated irritant.
When will conservative politicians learn they should never attribute ethical, fair or intelligent values to their Democrat counterparts? The DNA of the lefty legislator does not possess the genes for honor or quid pro quo. A peace offering is something at which they sneer, gladly accepting it and awaiting the day when they can return the favor with a stab to the back. When you have the votes to steamroll the Democrats, you use them. There should be no mercy and no quarter, and when they have the chance, Republicans should institute as much common sense legislation and appoint as many common sense judges as possible.
It is a battle requiring eternal vigilance, for once in power the left will always resort to the most underhanded of tricks. We have seen how the Democrats bypassed Congress during the Clinton years, supporting legislation via executive order. We have also seen how they do everything in their power to legislate from the bench, rather than interpret existing law.
And now, the Democrats seek to pressure President Bush to follow the path of his predecessors and appoint moderates who will eventually swing far to the left. Bush is good at breaking patterns, however, and the current situation will not be an exception to that trend. He knew he HAD to beat John Kerry not because of Social Security, tax reform or even the war against terror. The most important reason was that the winner of election 2004 would determine the make-up of the Supreme Court, and thus the nature of American society for the next 20 or 30 years.
Bush will likely appoint three people to the Supreme Court. O'Connor has announced retirement, and Rehnquist will likely go before the 2006 Senate race. John Paul Stevens, at 85, is fairly certain to hold on as long as possible, but it's doubtful he will last until 2008. Though many are wringing their hands over the fear that Bush will nominate moderates, they should brush the worries aside. Bush, who above all else never wavers from a plan, will appoint at least two very staunch conservatives. After all, at least till 2006, he has the Senate votes to assure confirmation.
To replace O'Connor, Bush will likely go with J. Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit, Michael O'Connell of the 10th Circuit or (if he wants to woo women voters) Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit. All are good choices. All are firm conservatives. When Rehnquist retires, the President will pick from the runners up. Should the opportunity arise to replace Stevens after 2006, and if the Democrats make inroads in the Senate, the nod will probably go to Alberto Gonzales, who is of slightly more moderate views.
But, if the Republicans hold control or even gain seats in 2006, there is the possibility that the brilliant former Solicitor General, Ted Olson, will get the nod. Olson has the disadvantage of being older (mid-60's) but he has the advantage of being virtually immune to the sort of character assasination championed by Democrats. His wife Barbara died on 9/11, having been a passenger on American Airlines flight 77 which hit the Pentagon. Not even Dick Durbin, Chuck Shumer or Ted Kennedy would dare be too nasty to Ted Olson.
You are going to see a battle in Congress, there is no doubt of that, for any conservative appointment will be labeled by Democrats as "out of the mainstream." Obstructionism is their calling card, and they will fight tooth and nail to deny votes of Bush's nominees. You will see them renege on their promise to eschew the filibuster, because the left approaches a promise as something made to be broken.
It will be to no avail. Republican Presidents have appointed poor judges before. This time, the scales of justice will be balanced.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ron Marr
