Saturday, July 02, 2005

Scripting The Response: The SCOTUS Appointment

We have no idea whom Bush will ultimately pick for the Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, but there are a few things to consider. This appointment is more significant than a Rehnquist retirement.

Rehnquist is a reliable originalist. He won't vary. So any appointment of him has to be a near ideological twin to keep the court on the same footing...not an easy person to find. But O'Connor is a swing vote, and sometimes a liberal one. Granted, the Dems will never forgive her for siding with Bush in Bush v. Gore in 2000 regardless of whether it was the right decision (we all know the right decision in all cases is the one that advances liberal Democrat political fortunes), but they did praise her ability to part from the conservative wing. So almost any originalist will do in order to move the court more reliably over the centerline.

And if Bush stays true to the originalist theme, the Senate Democrats, NARAL and the others will flip. And rightly so. Their prime concern is the right to an abortion, which is the absolute foundation to their party. Roe v. Wade is based solely in judicial activism and overreach, which an originalist would never countenance. And advancing their other legal objectives means having it done by judges legislating from the bench. They know that no American legislature would ever pass their far left agenda. Therefore, they oppose the idea that judges and justices will hold the line on the meaning of the law beyond that which was passed and approved by a legislative and executive branch.

So here's how the nominee will likely be received by Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin and the like:

Today the president nominated Judge _________ to the Supreme Court, and in doing so, indicated that he is more interested in creating further partisan division in America than appointing a mainstream and independent judge to the highest court in the land.

Clearly, Judge ______'s appointment indicates that the President intends to hijack the Supreme Court so that he can roll back decades of legal progress and make the rights and liberties we enjoy today history. Women will be unable to exercise their right to choose. Back-alley abortions will become the rule. "Separate but equal" will again be the law of the land. Privacy rights will become second to the Patriot Act. Gays will have to return to the closet. And the accused will be guilty
until proven innocent.

Or something almost as twisted and hysterical as that. I'm certain that I've forgotten something, so feel free to remind me, but I'm bracing for a nasty, nasty battle, and I don't think that it will end before the Bill Frist, legs trembling with fear of upsetting the Democrats, will be pushed by his party and the White House to the point of a rule change so that a simple majority can confirm judicial appointments. We can only hope that the "seven" Republicans who compromised with the Democrats on the appellate judges will be a bit more temperate this time.

This won't be pretty, but it will define the Democrats as the infantile extremists they are before a watching nation--the same people who stormed the Democratic National Convention in 1968. Just in time for a midterm election.


Blogger Jay D. Homnick said...

Well, you are certainly an unqualified optimist.

Oops, I didn't mean that you were not qualified to be an optimist but that you were not qualifying your optimism - which is not to say that your optimism lacks quality.

Actually, the primary fear need not be of the Democrats per se or the reaction of the American People. The greatest fear for guys like you and me who "get it" is that the split-the-difference triangulate-the-squares fence-sitting hair-splitting boot-licking adviser types, the Gergenesque wonks who always seem to get the ear of Republican Presidents and Senators, will come up with some milquetoast moony mannequin like Souter - who was bequeathed to us by Daddy Bush and the whole lack-of-vision thing. And let's not forget that Reagan gave us Kennedy because Ginsberg once smoked pot - good Lord, what fools people were to worry about such pettiness!

11:25 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home