02/01/2006: Feminista leader Kim Gandy is really in a tizzy over the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. She took to cursing over the airwaves! ๐
Hey Kim: if you’re gonna talk that way you might want to get a contract with Sirius so you can get it going with Howard Stern. ๐
01/31/2006: In a close vote (58-42), the Senate confirmed Samuel Alito as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (SCOTUS). This was the closest vote since Clarence Thomas, in the wake of the Anita Hill debacle, secured confirmation by a vote of 52-48.
In this case, 4 Democrats voted for Alito. One Republican–Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island–voted against Alito. The lone independent–Jim Jeffords–also opposed Alito.
While most of the debate has centered around the abortion issue, Alito will likely have little impact, as there are still five pro-Roe justices on SCOTUS.
However, Alito could have a significant effect on business and corporate cases, in which support can sway considerably. In addition, Alito would be instrumental in sure-to-be-addressed cases involving the war against Islammunists. Alito would also be a factor in keeping gun grabbers at bay.
If one of the five pro-Roe justices (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Souter) retires or dies, the next SCOTUS nominee will provoke the mother of all political fights.
Ann Coulter–my favorite columnist on the face of the earth–is facing a pre-midlife midlife crisis: in spite of all the great things she has done to expose the lunacy of the DNC, no one has indicted her.
Better yet, when another vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court, Bush needs to nominate her. THAT would make for the most entertaining confirmation hearings of all time.
11/1/2005: The Bush selection of Samuel Alito for SCOTUS is shaping up to be Bork II.
If Bush sticks to his guns on this one, he will do the country–and his Presidency–a great service.
I find it quite hypocritical that the liberal mainstream media–shills for the radical left that now controls the DNC–dismisses religious conservatives as “one-issue voters”, while schmoozing with their favorite single-issue lawmakers:
In contrast, conservatives–in defeating the Miers nomination–showed that they care about excellence in jurisprudence. Alito is very principle-oriented, with a very distinguished record of Constitutional scholarship. He is arguably as qualified as any nominee–liberal or conservative–in the last 50 years.
The right opposed Miers, not because she was not conservative–she was probably more so than Alito–but rather because she had no scholarly or public record that revealed her commitment to Constitutional law.
Conservatives care about excellence and merit, two things that the left has trouble comprehending.
We need a fight over court picks, and we need it yesterday. In fact, we need it 18 years ago. It is long past time to bury the borking of Bork.
This is not about abortion. This is not about gun rights. This is not about Miranda warnings. This is not about the Takings Clause, the Commerce Clause, the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause.
No…the fight we need is much larger than any of those things in specificity.
The Left believes the Constitution is malleable, pliable, and subject to the whims of judicial determination of “modern needs” and “international trends”. If the Constitution does not address an issue, it is up to the judge to implement the solution via “interpretation” of the Constitution. If Wal-Mart wants to build a new Supercenter in a residential area, then this can be “interpreted” as “public use”, empowering the government to seize private property for private enterprise via the Takings Clause. This could spell the death of free markets.
In contrast, the Right believes the Constitution means what it says, and is not up for revision except through the Amendment process. In other words, it is not the job of a judge to right social wrongs that are not addressed in legislation or the Constitution. That means if I–as a judge–support gun control, then I still have no business ruling in favor of it. After all, the Constitution specifically prohibits the government from abridging the rights of citizens to arm themselves. If Wal-Mart wants to build a Supercenter in what is now a residential area, then it is up to Wal-Mart to negotiate with homeowners as free market agents. After all, the Constitution does not permit the government to seize private land for redistribution to other private enterprises.
If there are social issues left unaddressed by the Constitution, then an originalist leaves it up to the state and/or federal governments to deal with that through the democratic and legislative process. It is not the duty of a judge to impose a judicial solution to an issue unaddressed by the law or the Constitution. A judge has no business deferring to “international law” on these matters. After all, which “international law” is correct? Saudi Arabia (with Sharia law)? Japan? Malaysia? Thailand? Indonesia? Sudan? Iran?
Originalists (also known as constructionists) would–as Justice Scalia recently opined–accept that we did not win our hard-earned freedom from Europe only to subject ourselves to their laws.
Some people may suggest that such interpretation would allow for slavery. It would have before 1865. In fact, after a bitter war, and even the Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment was necessary to resolve the issue as a matter of law.
Without the 13th Amendment, the issue of slavery would still be dependent upon the opinions of 5 justices. Originalism demanded an Amendment, which allowed for a better, long-lasting resolution of a very troubling issue.
An activist view suggests that you don’t need Amendments, you simply need the right justices. That type of thinking is dangerous. After all, justices do not serve for eternity. After they are gone, other justices will serve. Their opinions may be different. Trusting your freedoms–or your perception of “justice”–to the need for 5 votes is tenuous freedom at best. Unfortunately, that is where judicial activism leaves us.
An originalist view forces Americans to address issues in the Law and Constitution. This allows for the prospect of true resolution and lasting freedom.
That–true resolution of serious issues, and lasting freedom–is why we need this fight.
10/31/2005: In a :::tongue in cheek::: completely unexpected move, NARAL has come out against the confirmation of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court.
10/31/2005: Notorious gun-grabber and abortophile (up)Chuck Schumer (D-NY), aghast at the Bush selection of Samuel Alito for SCOTUS, has started the race-baiting game:
“Will Alito, like Rosa Parks, use his seat to change the course of history for the better, or will he return it to the injustice of the past?รขโฌย
That shows you he is a master baiter.
10/31/2005: In a boost for SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is expressing disappointment with the latest Bush pick.
If Reid, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Leahy, and Clinton oppose him, then he must be outstanding.
Here are my predictions:
(1) There will be talk of a filibuster.
(2) The GOP will not have the stones to use the nuclear option. Instead, they will work out a deal and Alito will get a Senate vote. The score will be 51-50, with Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote.
End-result: a big victory for Bush, while highlighting the lunacy of the Democrats and the spineless dweebs on the GOP side.
****
There will be no filibuster this time. Neither side can afford one. If the Dems filibuster, Bush wins by taking the Senate–both parties–to the woodshed. The “gang of 14”–which includes Arlen Specter–lack the stones to use the “nuclear option” in the event of a filibuster.
Still, Alito would get confirmation by a small minority. GOP senators Collins, Chafee, Snowe, and Specter would probably vote against confirmation. If no Dems support Alito, that makes the score 51-49. If another Republican defects, we have a 50-50 tie.
Advantage: Bush. Cheney breaks the tie.
10/31/2005: The fight is ON!!!!
THIS is why conservatives voted for Bush: to get nominees like Samuel Alito. We want the fight; we’re going to get it.
Now it’s time for the Republicans in the Senate to start being the conservatives they were elected to be.
10/27/2005: By withdrawing, Harriet Miers took one for the good of the country, but shame on Bush for nominating her in the first place.
I’ll state for the record: I tried as hard as I could to give Miers a fair shake, largely because Bush has a very good batting average with judicial picks. That she had no judicial experience was not a big deal to me–neither Chief Justice Rehnquist nor Byron White had such experience either. I also figured that, with her experience in business law, she would provide a dimension of experience that is missing from the current court. (And most cases that go before the Court will involve corporate law, antri-trust, and commerce.) I was willing to wait for her to reveal herself at her confirmation hearings.
That she has been an evangelical Christian for 25 years is quite admirable. That she is most likely pro-life in both her personal life (she went to great lengths to take care of her ailing mother) and professional life (she is regarded as pro-life on abortion by those who know her) is also admirable. That she used to (maybe still does) carry a gun–a .45 (YES!!!)–definitely scores points with me. None of those things in specificity tell me how she arrives at conclusions.
And that is the point about conservatives: we are largely principle-based. Yes…we like to have the right outcomes (who doesn’t?) We also care about process. Anyone who has taken algebra knows that it’s not just about getting the right answer, but also using the right reasoning to get there. Otherwise, you can have someone who may have staunch conservative views today who ends up moving to the left over the course of his or her career. (Contrast Scalia and Rehnquist with Kennedy and Souter. That says it all.)
We conservatives are also sick and tired of Presidents who say, “trust me”, as they provide stealth nominees. Kennedy and Souter have been complete disasters.
And I’m not simply talking about abortion: they would subjugate the Constitution to developments in international law. In the Kelo decision, they have inflicted communist capitalism on us by empowering government to confiscate land from one private entity and redistribute it to corporations. They joined the lefties by supporting reverse discrimination, which throws merit to the wind.
They also opposed the line-item veto, which gives the President the power to enforce fiscal responsibility.
THIS is why we need someone with a track record–either as a jurist or as a published scholar on Constitutional issues.
(1) The United Nations has always been flirting with a gun ban. Currently, John Bolton reflects Bush policy: he opposes it. However, in the event of a Democratic administration, someone of different mind may give the U.N. the impetus to pass it. If that EVER happens, the court fight will make Roe v. Wade look like an afternoon nap. We need a nominee who believes that our Constitution is not up for de facto Amendment by international choice. :::locking and loading my VEPR .308:::
(2) The Kelo disaster has been a wakeup call to Americans. It is a direct attack on free markets. Without private ownership of land, markets can never be truly “free”. We need a nominee who accepts the free market implications of the 5th Amendment, and that the Takings Clause is not the Wal-Mart Empowerment Act. Otherwise, we have moved from being the USA to being the USSA. Religious freedom (a Christian underpinning) and private enterprise helped make America great. Both are also essential elements of a free society. Lose either one and we’re no longer free. Unless a SCOTUS nominee accepts that premise, I say vote ’em down!
(3) The Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Lawrence decisions each reflect a level of judicial activism: they have taken social issues that have no Constitutional precedent and short-circuited any democratic recourse. We conservatives would prefer a nominee who believes that it is not the role of the judge to be the arbiter of social policy. One can support abortion rights without supporting Roe.
Bush now has a golden opportunity to establish himself as the great champion of judicial restraint. That requires a decisive fight with the likes of Biden, Boxer, Kennedy, Schumer, Specter, Feinstein, Leahy, and Clinton. That fight is necessary for the good of this country. That is the tragedy of the Miers debacle: the Miers hearings would be about Miers, not about judicial activism versus originalism.
If he picks Michael Luttig, Janice Rodgers Brown, Karen Williams, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owens, or Harvie Wilkinson, conservatives will give Bush all the support in the world. The fight will be on, and it will be up to the GOP majority in the Senate to [crap] or get off the pot.
10/27/2005: Ann Coulter, my favorite fellow right-winger, speaks for me regarding Bush’s current problems.
Why he has insisted on flipping off his conservative base is puzzling. We know Michael Moore, Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Molly Ivins will always have an axe to grind with him; however, it’s the conservatives who are all but ready to throw him overboard.
Mr. President, we applaud your tax cuts, your willingness to take the fight to terrorists and Islammunist thugs, and your willingness to take on Social Security and tax reform.
We also applaud most of your court picks: Janice Rodgers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, and Miguel Estrada each represent outstanding commitment to judicial excellence, conservative style. For that reason, most of us gave you a pass with John Roberts. Even though he would not have been a first choice of most of us, we have no doubt–based on the breadth of his career and his performance before the Senate–that he will make a fine Chief Justice.
However, we have some serious gripes.
(1) Your spending record makes LBJ look like Scrooge. You let Ted Kennedy foist the largest expansion in education spending on Americans–compounding a problem of bureaucracy by creating more of it. You have yet to veto any spending bills. You have shown no willingness to hold the line on pork spending.
(2) Your lackluster approach to immigration reform. We realize that the INS is the most mismanaged organization in the federal government. But immigration is a national security issue. We need to ID them when they come. When their visas expire, they need to go. With Mexicans, we need to ID them, require them to pay taxes, learn English, and abide by our laws. That also means no welfare!
(3) Harriet Miers. I wanted to give you the benefit of a doubt on Miers. God knows I tried. I figured your batting average was good on court picks, so Miers deserved consideration. Trouble is, she’s not even in the ballpark on Constitutional matters. Conservatives are fed up with Kennedys and Souters. Miers may have been conservative, but she wasn’t in the same league with Priscilla Owen, Janice Rodgers Brown, Karen Williams, Edith Jones, Michael Luttig, or Harvie Wilkinson. A more established scholar was needed.
Now, you are on the verge of possible indictments against some of your key people. If that happens, you will need the support of your base.
How can you gain this if you are always flipping off the people who elected you?
If you want to have success in your second term, you will need to listen to your base.
(1) Conservatives are largely principle-driven. Falwell and Robertson do not speak for the bulk of religious conservatives. (The two of them are ideologues.) In spite of what mainstream news media believe, the large bulk of us think for ourselves. We are well-educated, and well-informed. For court nominations, we want conservatives–originalists–who have the track record to boot.
For SCOTUS picks, think Luttig, Brown, Owen, Jones, Williams, Wilkinson. Then watch the right go to war for you.
(2) You need someone like Michael Yon to make the case for what we are doing in Iraq. Americans are fighting a two-front war: we are winning in Iraq, but losing to the New York Times. You need someone of Michael Yon’s stature to be your spokesperson. Right now, your people over here are not making the case.
(3) If no one on your staff is indicted, then pick up the tax reform fight and take it to the wall. We’ve heard enough talk. We don’t need a task force: we need someone with a vision. Take the flat tax or the fair tax–I recommend the latter–and go on a full-court press. Hit Congress hard on this. They can either be a Body that changes the world, or they can be a group of useless schmucks who resemble the very bums we threw out 11 years ago.
Basically, our problem with you is that you have turned into a wuss. If that is Karl Rove’s doing, you need to send him packing, indictment or no indictment.