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In the wake of Harriet Miers asking to have her nomination to the Supreme Court withdrawn, Democrats have, with one voice, accused the radical right wing (of which I'm a proud member) of attempting to pack the Court and demanding a litmus test for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