The Quiet Conservative August 1, 2007
The Attack on the Supreme Court By the Left
A previous article on 07/04/2007 described the mischaracterization by the media of the make up
and direction of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not becoming “more conservative”, it is becoming
more honest. The purpose of the court is not to set social policy based on a desired outcome. The
purpose of the court is to interpret the case based on its constitutionality. If one wants to set social
policy there is ample chance to do so in the other two branches of government. Up to the retirement
of Justice O’Conner the court was noticeably liberal in its decisions often coming up with opinions
that had no basis in the Constitution. For that you need go back no further than Kelo vs. New
London where the divided Supreme Court decided that private property belonged to the person that
could bring in the most tax dollars to the government. That also was a divided opinion at 5/4 but
with no great cry by the liberals in the media, or the Democratic leaders in Congress.
Now the balance has changed. With the appointment of Alito and Roberts to the Court it has moved
back towards its original purpose and design. This has outraged Democrats and progressive
socialists. By having a committed left on the Court they could advance agendas that would not pass
muster in the legislative or executive branches. They had a third arm of government that was
unelected and unaccountable pursuing social change without the consent of the people.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York has openly stated on July 27th, “We should reverse the
presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford
to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” He
stated the Senate should not confirm another nominee “Except in extraordinary circumstances.”
He goes on “Alito shouldn't have been confirmed. I should have done a better job. My colleagues
said we didn't have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.” The
selection of Justices for the Court is so central to promoting the progressive agenda Senator Schumer
will completely abandon the role the Senate has under the Constitution and actively work against it.
At least the scheme is out in the open. During the hearing rounds for Justices Alito and Roberts
there was the suggestion of an ideological litmus test for nominees. This has never come up before
openly in the history of nominees. The questions swayed dangerously close to a religious litmus test
in which Catholics, due to the anti abortion position of the Church, would be told they need not apply
for the position. Now, Senator Schumer has openly stated his contempt for the Constitution. The
role of the Senate is to advise and consent on the qualifications of the nominee. Not whether he or
she will forward the cause of progressive socialism. If ideology was an acceptable reason for denial,
Justice Ginsberg never would have been confirmed. A former ACLU lawyer and in the forefront of
the abortion and women’s rights movement, she was ratified by a Republican Senate because she
was qualified as a jurist. The confirmation vote was 96-3. Senator Schumer gave no great outcry
that she was replacing Byron White, a conservative jurist and no press pushed the story that the
court would be swaying to the left. Senator Schumer's sense of needed ‘balance’ was notably absent.
The greatest thing that could happen to this country would be if Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
and Breyer were replaced not with liberals or conservatives, but Justices that actually applied the
Constitution to the cases before them without political prejudice. Such a court composition would
never happen if Senator Schumer has his way. Ideology trumps all and progressive socialism knows
no rules. The next Presidential election is very important for that very reason. What type of U.S.
Supreme Court will we have for the foreseeable future? Do you, as Americans, want a Justice that
applies the law and the Constitution impartially and accurately? Or do you want a Justice that shops
international law and works backwards from the desired outcome to justify the results? We are not
ruled by judges. That is not how the country was designed and not how it has been governed up until
now.
As before it is recommended you go to the Supreme Court Web site and read the opinions and the
oral arguments of the Justices for yourself. The web address is www.supremecourtus.gov. From
the 2004 docket the Kelo v. New London case (Actually delivered on 6/23/2005) is the case which
decided against private property ownership. Two from this last docket worth reading are Gonzales v.
Carhart and Panetti v. Quarterman. In the first the Court decided the partial birth abortion challenge
to the law passed by Congress. The second is the challenge of a convicted murderer on his mental
capacity. If they seem a bit long, always skip to what Justice Thomas writes. He is one of the
greatest Jurists ever to be on the Court and so one of the most reviled by the left. But please, read
the opinions and become informed. Both are an illustration of applying the law verses deciding on an
outcome and then working backwards to support it no matter how you distort the law.
Knowledge is the first disinfectant against socialism and the future Court pushed by the likes of
Senator Schumer.