July 1, 2005 marked the beginning of what promises to be one of the most pivotal periods in American political life. After serving twenty four years on the United States Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’ Connor has called it a career. Her retirement portends a long and heated battle over who will succeed her as the 109th Justice to sit on the court. Both sides of the ideological spectrum have been gearing up for this for quite some time—and for good reason.

If you were not already convinced of the far-reaching influence that the court wields over this nation, by now you should be.  Even if you had been living under a rock up until the past few weeks, you ought to have a clear idea of the vast amount of power vested in the court and how the misuse of that power can imperil even the most settled liberties reserved to the states and the people.

Moreover, the current court has emphatically shown us that nothing in the Constitution is set in stone.  The founding fathers may have been well-intentioned, but this court has simply refused to be bound to such archaic standards in the face of a diverse and ever-evolving society. 

Hence, in this year alone, we have seen the Eminent Domain Clause expanded to include the right of municipalities to steal private property for no other reason than increased tax revenue.  We have seen the Establishment Clause expanded to include the public display of the Ten Commandments as an establishment of religion.  We have seen the commerce clause expanded to include the power of the federal government to regulate marijuana that has neither been bought, sold, nor shipped across state lines.  And we have seen the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment” expanded to include the execution of minors even though for over two hundred years no jurist in the country could discover anything cruel and unusual about it.

In sum, the court has shown an uncanny disposition for action in cases bespeaking restraint, and for polite “deference” in cases demanding swift legal intervention.

With the retirement of Justice O’ Connor, the so-called swing vote on the court, one would think that a bi-partisan effort would be underway to steer the court toward a stricter construction of the Constitution.  Instead, the partisan rhetoric that characterized the recent appellate judicial nominations has resurfaced.  Liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy immediately warned President Bush that “if he abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people,” then that nominee will be opposed.

Kennedy should be concerned about our freedoms and liberties, but he should be even more concerned that the individuals responsible for rolling them back nowadays are members of his own political philosophy—which is “government, government, and more government.” 

He should likewise turn the mirror on himself when he talks about the abuse of power vis-à-vis judicial nominations.  He and his cronies still ridiculously insist that being in the minority affords them a special right to decide which nominees the Senate may vote on and which ones it may not.  This is clearly nonsense as Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President unqualified discretion over whom he nominates.  It is only in the appointment of those nominees that the Senate has the authority—as well as the duty—to say “yes” or “no.”  Silence is not an option. 

Besides, if Kennedy exercised the slightest bit of honesty and integrity in his reading of the Constitution, he would admit that the President cannot abuse his power simply by nominating someone; it is an impossibility under our system—period.

Constitutional principles notwithstanding, the Democrats are in a bit of a slump right now.  They are the minority party at practically every level of government, but yet cling to the delusional idea that they reflect the values of mainstream America.  They believe this in spite of the overwhelming opposition to their policy initiatives at the polls.  Lucky for them, however, the judiciary in this country is just as arrogant and has legitimized key components of the liberal agenda with the mere strike of a gavel.

Republicans, and the rest of the Senate, can stop this judicial dictatorship by appointing a staunch originalist to the SCOTUS. And they do have America’s blessing regardless of what the Ted Kennedys of the world may say. Let’s just hope they don’t squander it on another David Souter.         

Copyright by Eric Reikowski

Email Eric Reikowski