The Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal.com has excellent piece that talks about the U.S. Supreme Court and the judges, and how liberals have blocked superb nominations—women, minorities, judges of faith—for political reasons, i.e., to advance their liberal causes.
(Excerpts)
Leaked Democratic memos indicate that Mr. Estrada was targeted, in part, because, “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment,” and because, “we can’t make the same mistake we made with Clarence Thomas.” Judiciary Democrats, led by Sens. Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and Richard Durbin, agreed to block or slow-walk particular nominees at the behest of liberal campaign donors, including the trial lawyers, the NAACP, and the national abortion providers’ lobby. These Democrats decided, in advance of hearings, which nominees to block, and Democratic staffers characterized Bush nominees as “Nazis.”
…
Since 2003, Democrats have filibustered Mr. Estrada plus nine other appellate nominees: Carolyn Kuhl, Priscilla Owen, Judge Pickering, Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Henry Saad, David McKeague, Richard Griffin and William Myers. Most of them were elected previously to their states’ supreme courts and are either women or ethnic minorities. Others have been singled out due to a litmus test on abortion, by which Democrats have come perilously close to stating that people of orthodox religious faith are ineligible for the bench.
…
The Supreme Court is now composed of four consistent liberals (John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer), three firm conservatives (Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia), and two middle-of-the-roaders (Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy). In all likelihood, the next president will replace at least two and as many as four. The type of jurists confirmed will determine the course of government for the next 50 years. Will liberal activists dominate, creating new constitutional mandates favoring their social policy, aiding the plaintiffs’ bar, and continuing Washington’s accretion of power? Or will constitutionalists rule, returning divisive social debates to the people, throwing out junk lawsuits, and regarding federal power skeptically? More to the point, will judges be returned to their historical role as neutral interpreters of the Constitution and precedent, or will the imperial judiciary be revitalized and extended for decades? It’s up to Republicans to make clear the choice.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- State-Funding of Sports Boondoggles Need To Be Sent To The Penalty Box - Wednesday March 13, 2024 at 4:44 pm
- I’m from the government and I’m here to help you become barely mediocre like us. - Tuesday March 5, 2024 at 11:53 am
- Big-Ass Government makes Big-Ass Blunder - Friday March 1, 2024 at 12:36 pm
