Last week on NBC’s Meet the Press, Tim Russert sat down with Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to discuss the passing scene in American politics. After a brief discussion about the war against militant Islam— I mean the war against “terror”—the subject of the Supreme Court vacancies came up. Schumer and Hatch, prominent members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, each weighed in. But it was Schumer who made the most important points on the matter, though it is unclear at this time whether he or his fellow Democrats realize it.
Schumer stated he hoped President Bush would choose a “consensus nominee” that would bring the country together. He also urged Bush to foster constructive dialogue with the Senate so that someone “we could all agree upon” would be appointed to the court. In making his case, Schumer mentioned President Clinton’s meeting with Senator Hatch prior to nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the high court.
There are, however, several glaring flaws in this reasoning. First, as Hatch, himself, pointed out, President Clinton sought his advice because he thought it would help him fulfill his responsibility to make judicial nominations. He did not do so out of fear that Republicans would “shut down the Senate” or subject nominees to vitriolic personal attacks. It’s also worth noting that the Senate Clinton was nice enough to consult with was predominantly Republican. Hence, if the majority was unhappy with a particular nominee, then that nominee would be voted down. Clinton would have been forced to choose someone else.
Today, however, the power dynamic has changed. The American people have made it clear that they prefer Republicans to represent them at all levels of government. This is what the Democratic Party and its leftist cohorts can’t stand and ultimately what drives their obsession with preserving the activist character of the judiciary via filibusters and smear campaigns.
One might remind the Democrats that the exercise of democracy does not require that everyone be happy about the outcome. Voting is typically a zero-sum game wherein one side prevails at the expense of another; even elementary school children can appreciate that.
Besides, let’s face it—appointing a so-called moderate judge that will satisfy two diametrically opposed political ideologies is impractical, if not virtually impossible, and it will not solve any of the problems relating to the power struggle between the legislatures and the courts. Moreover, far from uniting the country, the federal judiciary has done more to divide America than any other institution in history.
As Schumer rightly pointed out, “The Supreme Court Justices have enormous power…with the flick of a pen, they can change millions of people’s lives.”
Therein lies the root of the problem. For years, the unelected members of the Supreme Court have made a living at usurping the powers of the legislatures with the flick of a pen. Far from adhering to the actual text of the legal contract they are sworn to uphold, many of the court members have chosen to base their decisions on totally irrelevant concepts such as foreign law and “evolving standards of decency”; not to mention those mysterious “emanations” and “penumbras” that were used to justify the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.
This is why, in 2005, we have a “battle” for the Supreme Court—because its members have not remained faithful to the Constitution, but have imposed their own policy preferences under the guise of “interpreting law.” This is not a fight over the appointment of judges so much as it is a fight over who will decide the future of our country. Will it be the American people, or an exclusive club of black-robed oligarchs?
Moreover, there has been a lot of talk on the left about “extremist” judges rolling back personal freedoms by, for example, overturning a woman’s right to abortion. But such consternation is completely unfounded and borne of a lack of perspective. As syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell recently wrote, “There was never a federal ban against abortions until Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right to abortion out of thin air…before that, the federal government had nothing to say about the subject and various states had a variety of laws regulating abortion.”
I doubt any feminists cried extremism over that power grab...
In short, Roe is judicial activism in its purest, most disastrous form. And it is why we now have SCOTUS nominees being asked about their views on abortion and “gay marriage”—subjects that are nowhere found in the Constitution, and therefore, are none of the court’s business.
Nothing disunites and aggravates a country more than when its citizens are denied a say in fundamental public policy issues. The President and the Senate have an obligation to rectify this injustice by appointing judges who will shift the culture war back where it belongs—in the voting booths and legislatures. Then, and only then, will America achieve a true consensus and finally discover just what the popular phrase “out of the mainstream” really means.
Copyright by Eric Reikowski
Email Comments
