Of Litmus Tests and Court Packing

In the wake of Harriet Miers asking to have her nomination to the Supreme Court withdrawn, Democrats have, with one voice, accused the radical right wing (of which I'm a proud member) of attempting to pack the Court and demanding a litmus test for Supreme Court justice.  You know what?  They are right.

I do want the Supreme Court packed.  I want an unbeatable majority of Justices who believe in the Constitution.  Not the living, breathing, evolving document of ever changing meanings and ever growing penumbras; but the timeless, amazingly relevant document that founded a nation based upon the up to then impossible idea of the rights of man and limited government.

I want nine justices who believe, as John Roberts recently articulated in his confirmation hearing, that outcomes are less important than faithfulness to the rule of law.  Roberts said, "Somebody asked me, you know, 'Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?' And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that 'I'll look out for particular interests.' ....The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and that's what I would do."

Yes, I know, such a view is heresy to outcome obsessed activists.  Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Anthony Kennedy admit that they look at what the law should be.  They admit that they consider laws from other countries.

For example, when looking at affirmative action, or as I call it, reverse discrimination, Justice Ginsberg made this amazing statement from the bench:

"...we're part of a world, and this problem is a global problem. Other countries operating under the same equality norm have confronted it. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, has, the European Union, South Africa, and they have all approved this kind of, they call it positive discrimination. Do we -- they have rejected what you recited as the ills that follow from this. Should we shut that from our view at all or should we consider what judges in other places have said on this subject?"

Note to Justice Ginsberg.  You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, NOT the Constitution of the European Union. 

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 Justice Ginsberg, the brilliant legal scholar, seems to think that you have to treat some people unequally in order to prevent them from being denied equal protection under the law.  It is an insane, through the looking glass view of the Constitution but American Leftists love it.

Anyone who opposes that way of thinking, according to the leftists, is a dangerous extremist.  Imagine, someone who believes  that words mean what they say is an "extremist".  Someone who thinks that American judges should decide cases based upon the American Constitution is a "dangerous extremist".  Based upon the left wing definitions, I want a Supreme Court packed with dangerous extremists.

Leftists also claim we conservatives have a "litmus test" for judicial nominees.  They, wrongly, I might add, claim that we demand that any court appointee be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade.  What we demand is that a court appointee follow the Constitution.  If that is a litmus test, then so be it.

Strictly following the Constitution in deciding cases.  Anyone who loves the Constitution and what this nation stands for would want the Supreme Court packed with people passed that litmus test.

Plame, Delay Part Of Plan

Today's Democrat party is determined to recover the power it lost over the past twenty five years.  Not at the ballot box, but in the jury box.  Since 1980, the Democrats have been unable to win national elections.  No, I didn't sleep through Bill Clinton's eight years, but face it.  He didn't run as a Democrat.  Bill Clinton was a "new" Democrat.  He was a charter member of the DLC which was designed to push the Democrat party away from the Left and toward the center.

Democrats are leftists.  Moveon.org, Howard Dean, Al Franken and Janeane Garafalo are the real face of the Democrat party.  The 2005 version of Al Gore, not the 1984 version, is the real face of the Democrat party.  They are distrustful of capitalism, see individuals as powerless victims,

and consider Islamic terrorists to be less of a threat than corporate robber barons.  To them, America is not the land of the free and the home of the brave.  It is the land of the victim and the home of oppressed workers.

THAT is why Democrats consistently lose elections.  Americans don't see themselves as victims and, thus, don't identify with Democrats.  Americans, as a rule, are positive and see this nation as great and worthy of its blessed position in the world.  As a result, Democrats, instead of changing their message, have sought to change the image of Republicans.

In the eyes of Democrats, if they can prove Republicans to be criminals who only care about helping multinational thieves and slumlords, then the masses will feel victimized and run into the benign, caring arms of Democrat protectors.

That is why the Plame case really matters.  Do you think the Democrats want to protect the CIA?  If so, I urge you to Google "the Church Commission".  Do you think Tom Delay's actions are without precedent in Texas politics?  If so, check and see how Texas Democratic PACs were spending money in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The bottom line is that Democrats have nothing to offer the American public, so they must eliminate their opponents or successfully demonize them.  It is a strategy based, not on moral outrage or strength, but on political desperation.

Since 2001, the Democrats have tried one pseudo-scandal after another.  So far, nothing has stuck, so they keep raising the stakes.  They can't help it.  These are the same people that turned a funeral into a cross between a tent revival and a professional wrestling event. Complete with bad guys to boo.

They are the students of the 1960s who can't accept that the nation didn't continue down their path to a worldwide commune.  Do they think that maybe their ideas were wrong?  No, they merely think the American people are too stupid to recognize their wisdom.

They have, though, finally recognized that the American people will never, in a battle of ideas, agree with them.  Therefore, they believe that if they create another Watergate, then the American people will hail them as saviors and restore them to their rightful place. 

 

Fundamentalists Waiting For The Rapture

Leftists and Bush haters have spent the better part of two years praying to St. John (brotherhood of man) Lennon, or is it Lenin; clutching their medallions of St. Joseph and St. Valerie, Wilson and Plame, believing that every day might finally be the day when the benign pacifist socialist coincidence of the universe rewards their faithfulness and takes down the demon Rove once and for all.  Every mention of Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury sends them into a religious fervor worthy of a backwoods Holiness meeting complete with rattlesnakes.  

Rumormongers and date setters excited the faithful with predictions of how many and when the indictments might come.  Each new prediction causes the true believers to forget the inaccuracies of the predictions before it.  For you see, we aren't talking about people thinking rationally.  We are talking about faith.   

The leftists and Bush haters have given up rationality, and instead, have become cultists of hate so strong that they make the Aryan Brotherhood pale by comparison.  And as all good cultists, they have a day of Rapture.  For the leftists and Bush haters, that day is the day that Karl Rove is indicted in the Valerie Plame case.  The reason is because on that day, it will be a sign, a prophetic fulfillment if you will, that the Bush presidency and the neocons have finally crumbled and a millenia of peace, brotherhood, harmony and national healthcare will arise from those ashes.  

Rove's appearance, yesterday, at the grand jury for a fourth time, was hailed as the parting of the eastern sky.  The cultists knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that this meant that Fitzgerald was ready to hand down indictments and Rove's name was going to be first on the list.    Maybe not.  When Rove left the grand jury, his attorney stated, 

"The special counsel has not advised Mr. Rove that he is a target of the investigation and affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges," Rove's attorney Robert Luskin said in a statement. 

"The special counsel has indicated that he does not anticipate the need for Mr. Rove's further cooperation," the statement said.

Not exactly the wails and gnashing of teeth one would expect from a demon consigned to the lowest pits of Hell.

It's still to early to tell, but what if the prophecies are wrong?  What if no indictments are handed down?  Just the thought is enough to make a true believing leftist and Bush hater mix up a batch of Jonestown Kool Aid.

Nah, America couldn't be that lucky.

The Problem With Miers

 
The problem with President Bush's appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman.  If President Bush had selected Janice Rogers Brown, conservatives would be thrilled.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she's not a graduate of an Ivy League school.  Priscilla Owen graduated from Baylor Law School and conservatives have defended her for years.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she's not a judge.  William Rehnquist was not a judge when he was appointed.   It really has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade.  The 1973 decision by the court is merely a symptom.  It isn't the problem.   The problem with Harriet Miers is that she hasn't taken a solid well founded position on the Constitution that is able to withstand "growth" and "evolution".   The Constitution is not a changing document.  It isn't an evolving document.  It says what it says and America needs judges who recognize that.  It can only be changed by AMENDMENTS, not by judicial whims related to desired outcomes.   Take Roe for instance.  There is very little Constitutional law contained in Roe, but there is an abundance of achieving a desired outcome.    As far as Constitutional law is concerned, THE OUTCOME AND EFFECT ON PEOPLE IS IRRELEVANT.  The only thing that should matter is whether the Constitution was followed.   For example, the First Amendment clearly states "Congress shall make NO LAW..."  Campaign Finance Reform might be a desirable thing.  Taking big money donors out of politics might be a desirable thing, but the Constitution says "NO LAW".  Yet enlightened elites on the Supreme Court, including some EVOLVED "conservatives" upheld McCain Feingold even though the Constitution said otherwise.  It is that philosophy that cannot be permitted to stand.   By the same token, the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with the peoples' right to bear arms.  Stopping me from owning a fully automatic AK-47 might be a desirable outcome, but it is not a correct one underthe Constitution.   The reason conservatives like me are fans of Justices Thomas and Scalia have less to do with particular votes than it does their philosophy.  They believe the Constitution is paramount.  Outcomes and foreign laws should not outweigh the Constitution.  These men have been attacked for those beliefs since even before they took the bench and have held firm.   Harriet Miers has no such foundation.  She has no such visible firmness.  She has no such enunciated philosophy that says the Constitution must prevail regardless of who it helps or hurts.  That is why we oppose her.

If you want desired outcomes, then "We The People" should AMEND the Constitution, not have nine pseudo-philospher kings do it for us.  THAT is why we want strong Constitutionalists on the bench.  We want the Constitution followed as written and changes only accomplished by "We The People".