Thursday, April 21, 2005

More on the Judges Stakes

David Brooks, courtesy of RealClearPolitics has an almost excellent article in the NYT today about the Senate standoff.

I'm with him until about halfway through when he begins to take a nearly McCainian point of view about the rights of minorities and reprisals. His thesis is that Roe v. Wade was a hijacking of state' rights to determine through their legislatures how, if at all, abortion would be permitted, and that the battle to reverse that particular ruling has consumed the political process. I think he is partially right, but that is not even close to being the only reason why Republicans are not letting the matter go.

As I mentioned earlier this week, the stakes in this battle are very high. While many Republicans would like nothing better than to see Roe overturned, that's not the reason judges get appointed. There are many more issues in law than abortion. But decisions like Roe are the very thing that Republicans want to prevent. Judges have no place telling us what the law is because they believe that it ought to be that way. Similarly, those who are seeking a change in the law need to seek the counsel of the legislature, not the courts. The courts are there to affirm the law, not reform it. To do anything different is to permit a tyranny of the minority. Because these judges are inflicting their own political viewpoints on us without debate or opportunity for citizen comment.

The Democrats have never defended any "right" more than that of abortion. The degree to which they have rabidly defended it makes one think that abortion is the only thing the party exists to perpetuate. And with that in mind, they put a litmus test on each judge. Rather than concerning themselves with whether the judge will remain faithful to the law, they ensure that the judge will ignore the case and the law before them and deliver a politically reliable result on any abortion or reproductive rights issue. So yes, abortion is an issue for some.

We were not meant to be governed by robed masters, but rather by men and women just like us, from our home towns, who have to answer to us if they get it wrong. But the left won't be happy until they get their 1960s manifesto enacted into law. They know that they don't have the votes to do it in any state or at the federal level because the American people would forbid it. So they want to enact it in secret, little by little through overreaching judicial opinions. Roe was a start. It isn't the end.

The battle for judges matters. And while a minority party may be upset by pulling the "Byrd Option", we are governed by a majority. The Dems have, quite legally, done away with the filibuster in the past to fulfill their objectives. The Republicans should do the same. Because what the Democrats are pulling is patently wrong. They have no respect for a Constitution that doesn't allow for their vision of unlimited government. They want to do away with it, and they way they are doing it is by stretching the meaning of its terms to the point that they are unrecognizable from the text.

And it says much about us when we fear their ire and screaming more than we fear the shredding of the foundational document designed to protect us from the variety of Huxleyan despotism they seek to impose on us.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home