The White House decided to employ a politically-palatable, pundit-prescribed exit strategy with the withdrawal of Harriet Miers. Because of that, Miss Miers is no longer a nominee to the United States Supreme Court, and much of America may believe the Bush Administration's contention that she withdrew over a request for documents. In actuality, she withdrew because her 1993 pro-abortion speech came to light, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back for the great Dr. James Dobson, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator John Thune, and any members of the conservative base who had reserved judgment up to that point.

In ways, the whole fiasco was a great learning experience for all involved:

We learned that the Administration really needs to stop parroting the Leahy-originated line about looking for Supreme Court nominees "outside the judicial monastery". Every nominee to the USSC should have prior experience on the bench, and a track record that illustrates how they reason through legal issues, and what biases/predispositions they have.

We learned that group-identity politics should not figure into appointments to the Supreme Court. No seat on the USSC should be reserved on the basis of sex or race; those seats should be reserved for Justices who will rule on the basis of what the text of the Constitution actually says.

No more.

No less.

Finally, we learned that any "stealth" nominee inevitably is going to be bad for the conservative base of America. We should have learned that when Andy Card's other favorite nominee, David "Sununu says he's a home run" Souter, proved to be a consistent liberal after having been put onto the Supreme Court by the first President Bush. From now on, there needs to be no such thing as "stealth" nominees: the definition of insanity is trying the same thing twice and expecting different results.

Every future nominee to the Supreme Court should have a clear judicial track record, one that clearly illustrates how they will rule on cases like Casey and Kelo. Of course, that means no longer letting socially liberal oligarchs like Senator Kennedy and Senator Schumer set the rules. For years, conservatives have swallowed the preposition that nominees to our United States Supreme Court aren't supposed to proactively disclaim the reasoning and results of decisions like Roe vs. Wade. Yet, that preposition is fallacious, and the acceptance of it by conservatives is tantamount to pre-emptive surrender:

Surrender is inimical to conservatism, which at its core deeply loves free-market competition. Conservatives have no interest in surrendering, conservatives want to stake out pure and principled positions and fight through the night for them, confident in the strength that carries them and in the sun rising over a victorious morning for our country.

Thus, every future nominee should proudly stand up for a true, accurate reading of the U.S. Constitution. Such a reading includes acknowledgement that failure to overturn decisions like Roe and Danforth and Casey and Kelo would be a failure to follow the Constitution, since those decisions were all completely un-Constitutional in the first place.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown is a very high-impact personality, and it is hard to not feel an affection for the passion she shows. Certainly, she fully recognizes private-property rights, and would undoubtedly vote to overturn Kelo. Kelo, by the way, is the recent United States Supreme Court decision which gives local governments the authority to take anyone's family home, anyone's farm, anyone's land, and give the property to someone who will use it to generate more tax revenue for the government. In the near-33 years since Roe was mis-decided, only the Kelo decision has aroused as much lasting and fruitful passion with the home-and-family social conservatives that make up the voting base of this nation.

Janice Rogers Brown would make the right decision on private property rights. With regards to Roe vs. Wade however, the jury is still out. She ruled in favor of parental notification laws, and spoke eloquently in favor of parental rights, and appears to have a pro-morality bent. She also shows strong libertarian inclinations which may be in too-serious conflict with the three good things just mentioned. So, with regards to Roe et al, it is uncertain that she would rule to fully overturn it. Because it needs to be fully overturned in order for pro-life folks to succeed state-by-state in instituting right-to-life laws, I can't endorse her now. She has a lot of potential, and I hope that her views with regards to Roe are publicly clarified before Stevens and Ginsberg retire in the 2009-2013 Presidential term.

And then there are the two Ediths. Edith Clement seems to be Harriet Miers Version 2, and I doubt that she would make any conservative happy were she added to the Supreme Court. Edith Jones, on the other hand, has made a strong case against Roe vs. Wade. However, I still can't support her because of her double-standard bias against unmarried fathers.

Judge Michael Luttig is supported by infamous RINO pundit Hugh Hewitt, which should send up a red flag right there. He has employed the phrase "fundamental right to choose" in referring to abortion of pre-born infants. Anyone employing leftist terminology of that nature in reference to what is in fact the death of innocents is a RINO. Luttig would never overturn Roe vs. Wade, for in his words, Roe (by way of the pro-abortion Casey decision) is "super-stare decisis". What that means is that he considers Roe/Casey to be super-precedents which cannot be overturned. Luttig, in fact, is where Super-RINO Arlen Specter got the term "super-precedent".

After a very temporary flirtation with doing the right thing, Luttig reverted to Souteresque form and wrote a court decision (in his own words) "summarily affirming the unconstitutionality" of a state law banning partial-birth abortion. No one who could sign their name to such a pronouncement would ever vote to overturn Roe/Casey, and his nomination to the United States Supreme Court would be a lasting political disaster of epic proportions that would make the Harriet Miers Debacle look like a rose garden stroll in comparison.

Judge Harvie Wilkinson is much like Sandra Day O'Connor: all over the place, all at once, sans any sense of consistency. The last thing the United States Supreme Court needs is anyone who is anything like O'Connor.

So, with the future of this Constitutional Republic at stake, who should be nominated to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court?

One of two men with the experience, gravitas, intelligence, and pro-Constitution character to be another Antonin Scalia:

Those two men are Emilio Garza and Samuel Alito.

Judge Emilio Garza is a true conservative, and has bravely referred to the pro-abortion Casey decision of 1992 as "inimical to the Constitution". He's right, and he should be put on the United States Supreme Court right away.

Speaking of the Casey decision, before it got to the USSC, it was heard by a lower court. That court included Judge Samuel Alito. He upheld the husband-notification provision of the abortion law in contention, and his profoundly impactful reasoning was later referenced and agreed with by the late, great USSC Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Unfortunately, the interminably anti-fatherhood Sandra Day O'Connor shot down the husband-notification provision in the Supreme Court's decision on Casey. Men in particular should be big supporters of Alito's appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

I am.

Copyright by Chris Knight

Email Comments