The political landscape today isn�t the one that existed in 1987 when Democrats could safely line up behind Senator Kennedy�s smear of Judge Robert Bork: �Robert Bork�s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens� doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution.� But despite America�s new political geography, the reality that Democrats must lie about judicial nominees who believe in returning our courts to their proper constitutional sphere hasn�t changed a bit.

To prove the charge, we need only listen to the dirty lie dressed in the latest fashion that the same Senator Kennedy spits at the current Supreme Court nominee: �If confirmed, [Judge Samuel] Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right, placing at risk decades of American progress in safeguarding our fundamental rights and freedoms.�

Regarding decades of such Democratic lies, the fundamental question is this: Why do Democrats lie about judicial nominees while remaining cowardly silent about their own beliefs? To answer this question, we need to examine how the reaction to Judge Alito serves as a metaphor for Democrat behavior regarding the judiciary. Let us begin with the odious anti-Alito document which commentator Chris Matthews alleges �comes from the Democrats� and opens by prominently mentioning a �Mafia Conviction� which �Judge �Scalito� . . . failed to obtain.� The lies this document intends about Judge Alito�s accomplishments are clear. Just as clear is that no Democrat will say this:

Controlling the courts through the decisions of Liberal activist judges is so important to us Democrats that we will �Bork� any nominee who threatens that control. That�s exactly why we speak not a word about Judge Alito�s many successful prosecutions of organized crime or about his decency as a human being, a citizen, and a successful prosecutor and judge to associate him instead with contemptible gangsters.

Next, let�s consider the ironic lie that Judge Alito is an �activist,� a lie currently all the rage among Democrats on judicial hit missions. Liberals will never admit that they love judicial activism so long as it is practiced by Liberal activists. But no Moderate Democrat, including one such as Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana or Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has yet found the courage and honesty to utter these words: 

I voted to confirm Judge Roberts only after I assured myself that he would not be an �activist� judge, and I intend to take the same approach with Judge Alito. I do not wish any American, however, to interpret my condemnation of judicial activism as an act of political expediency. Therefore, to make my deep commitment to my beliefs clear, I here and now denounce the following Democrat and Republican judges whose activism renders them unfit to serve on the nation�s courts: Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Let us now consider the ridiculous and dangerous charge that Judge Alito�s reasoning in John Doe v. Groody proves that Judge Alito poses a threat to our �fundamental rights and freedoms� because he based his decision on the fact that search warrants are �normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation� and therefore, according to United States v. Ventresca, their validity is to be interpreted �in a commonsense and realistic fashion.� Regarding the whole practice of what ordinary Americans have come to call the allowing of criminals to go free on a �technicality,� no Democrat will proudly address the nation as follows:

We Democrats completely support the Liberal activist decisions that have extended the Exclusionary Principle to the states. That�s why we reject the arguments of �extremists� who lecture us that those decisions make it possible for murderers; rapists; pedophiles; murderer-pedophiles; and a horde of other vicious psychopaths to walk free despite incontrovertible evidence proving their guilt. Those extremists will never deter us from supporting an Exclusionary Principle �discovered� and �expanded� by Liberal activist judges, a principle that we openly admit never before existed in America and one so limiting that none like it exists in any other democracy. Neither will they shake our fervent belief that with respect to crime and punishment, Liberal activist judges have brought nothing but justice, safety, and general goodness to America n culture. 

Even Americans who take only a casual interest in politics should now understand why Democrats won�t tell the truth about their own beliefs when they attack judicial nominees with lies. Of course, Democrats might come to realize that they may as well begin telling the whole truth because the modern age of communication has ended the era when they could make fools of an uninformed, unorganized public. But let�s not hold our breath for the day when we will hear an honest Democrat say something like this:

�The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.� Those are the words of the Tenth Amendment, which we Democrats regard as an enormous mistake to be �corrected� by the decisions of Liberal activist judges who can�t find one instance in which the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from exercising power over the states. That�s why we will continue to smear any judicial nominee or other citizen who defends the principle of Federalism as a dolt who doesn�t understand that the states are populated by ignorant slobs who can�t understand that the best way to protect liberty, justice, and prosperity is to place the bulk of political power at the level of government most remote from the people, especially the Federal judiciary.

Copyright by A.J. DiCintio

Email Comments