The Roberts Confirmation: More Theater Than Deliberation

Though I am a conservative Republican, had I been a member of the US Senate back in the early nineties, I would have voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court.

My logic is as follows: the job of a United States Senator in "consenting" to the president's appointment to the country's highest court, the legislator need not agree with the nominee's philosophy, but simply pass judgment on their good character, ability, and academic and legal credentials.

US Senators should not engage in applying an ideological litmus test to nominees; that is the job of the president.

The concept of lifetime appointments is a check against the fickle electorate, thus balancing shifting political attitudes with tenured experience and stability. In a sense, the public "votes" for justices by electing a president reflective of the victorious party's philosophy and unless there are shortcomings in the previously cited criteria, US Senators should abide by the indirectly stated will of the people.

This is how it used to be, as a good example is found in Antonin Scalia's unanimous confirmation in 1987. President Clinton's two liberal jurists fared almost as well, with Ginsberg garnering an impressive 96-3 and Breyer being sent to the court by a 87-9 margin.

"US Senator Bayham" would have had some conservative company in going along with the Clinton judges as stalwart right-wingers like Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm voted with the majority, even though the GOP held a substantial minority of 43 US Senators at that time.

It should also be noted that both Breyer and Ginsberg received quick hearings and were confirmed within three months of their nominations.

However, if I knew then what we have all seen now through the impetuous antics of Ted Kennedy and Co., I would be far less inclined to consent to Breyer. I would unequivocally vote against Ginsberg based upon her penchant for citing foreign laws and traditions when ruling in American cases, which by the way is a matter for questioning by Republican US Senators when screening all judicial nominees.

Since John Roberts was tapped by President Bush to join the court, Democratic US Senators have pitched temper tantrums, engaging in character assassination through gross hyperbolic insinuation, making Judge Roberts appear as if he wore a white robe instead of a black one.

US Senator Charles Schumer of New York was condemning Roberts as an extremist, only minutes after his nomination had been made public. And pro-abortion militants were trying to block him based upon the chance he would throw out Roe v. Wade, the supposed "law of the land" that mandated the "right" of nationwide pregnancy termination by judicial fiat.

By the way, laws are not invented by judges but are supposed to be passed by the legislative branch of government, though to hold a judiciary nominee picked by a Democrat to this standard would result in automatic filibustering and perpetual gridlock for the judiciary.

Another rogue element in Supreme Court confirmations is the grandstanding by presidential aspirants. When examining the roll call vote on Roberts, you'll see quite a few Democratic luminaries exploring a presidential run, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden. Even Evan Bayh, perhaps the most conservative contender in the 2008 Donkey Stampede, made a point of voting against Roberts.

Though Mrs. Clinton has gone through great lengths to posture herself as a centrist, she knows that the feminist lobby exerts considerable muscle in the activist dominated primaries.

Not that the Democratic political kabuki was restricted to just the White House aspirants. Going over the list of Democratic yeas largely coincides with incumbents from marginal blue and red states. For these vulnerable Democrats, the Roberts vote allows them to show their "independence" from the national party.

A tip of my hat goes to Russ Feingold, the true believer, ideological liberal heir to the late Paul Wellstone, a US Senator who does not hail from a "red state," and a potential presidential candidate in 2008 for his vote for the new head of the Supreme Court.

The tin-foil hat wearing bloggers of the Left might not appreciate his gesture of voting on qualifications and not philosophy, though he has done a tremendous service through his example to bring back sanity and reason to Federal judiciary's confirmation process.

Farewell To The Chief

With a strong endorsement coming from the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of John Roberts's confirmation as the new Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, the interregnum in the judicial branch's leadership will soon come to a close.

And while this tribute to the late lamented Chief Justice William Rehnquist is tardy, due in large part to the national catastrophe that hit at the same time as his passing, I did want to say something about a man who embodied sanity in a branch of the national government that has been overrun with lunacy since before Ike erroneously appointed the "Dumb Swede" from California to the high bench.

The "Smart Swede" from Wisconsin was a strict constructionist and a jurist who did not hold tradition in contempt. His appointment was a rare conservative footnote during the ideologically vacuous Nixon Administration.

Rhenquist's interpretations of the US Constitution defended the rights of the unborn in Roe v. Wade and not long ago defended property rights from government-developer combines in the now infamous Kelo v. New London case, a precedent sanctioning land snatching for primary private gain with residual public benefit.

Though Rehnquist would know many lonely moments on a court packed with liberals ironically appointed by Republican presidents, he was, in this writer's opinion, the best Chief Justice since Charles Evans Hughes.

While his tendency to embrace conservative positions was appreciated by those on the right, there is an important unsung characteristic the Chief possessed that people of any party affiliation can admire.

Similar to the coverage of the previous pope, Strom Thurmond, and other aged and infirm conservative figures, there was a giddy media "death watch" on the chief justice over the past few years. Rehnquist was suffering from thyroid cancer and, in response to rumors of his pending retirement from the bench, snipped "That's for me to know and you to find out." To my knowledge, no similar dark vigils have been set up for court elder John Paul Stevens.

Rehnquist's participation in the courts proceedings exemplified his sense of duty and his drive under trying physical circumstances to "keep living until he's dead."

What precisely does that mean?

We live in a society where convenience is placed on a higher pedestal than the value of life. The "Soilent Green" mentality that has pervaded our culture has had its effect. A pregnancy is an annoyance to be terminated on a whim; old people are to be put out of our...I mean "their," misery; as are the severely debilitated, described charitably as persons in a persistent vegetative state.

Though seriously ill, Rehnquist never exhibited a lack of competence and made arrangements to be able to effectively serve on the court. Just like the late Pope John Paul II, Rehnquist proved through his service that despite severe illness an individual can continue to contribute even at the dusk of life.

The highlight of the 2005 Presidential Inauguration for me was not the better seating that came with being a member of the Electoral College, but seeing Big Bill, whose absence was almost taken as a certainty leading up to the event, swear in President Bush for a second term. When his presence was announced, I immediately shot up from my folding chair and gave the chief a rousing ovation, which was matched by others who then recognized the significance of the Rehnquist appearance.

Here was a man defying the winter elements and the limits on his own health because he felt he had a duty. While the AARP might neglect recognizing Rehnquist's example, the chief, who worked with a tracheotomy tube in his throat, should be a hero for every senior citizen wanting to continue being productive and not resign themselves to the shuffleboard or the hammock just because of age.

There was more to the professional career of William Rehnquist than the gold bars on his black robe and three decades worth of sound, cogent opinions. The chief tried to protect the sanctity of life in its earliest stages from the bench and by carrying on through advanced age and sickness was himself an argument against euthanasia.
==================================================
With Hurricane Rita's pending arrival, my prayers are with those in southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. Please stay safe and be mindful of the many hazzards that come with a visit from nature's Luca Brasi.

Honor Thy Founding Document

NOTE: Most my time and columns have been dedicated towards assisting with the relief effort and chronicling the killer storm known as Hurricane Katrina. As time passes, I will begin posting on non-forces of nature issues on a more regular basis.

For years I have eagerly awaited the creation of Constitution Day, a recognized holiday celebrating the adoption of America's current organic law. My silent vigil has ended with the attachment of a seemingly non-germane amendment to a spending bill with the creation of a day honoring America's governing charter.

The US Constitution was the colonial separatists' second attempt at establishing a lasting national government. The original constitution was the Articles of Confederation, a document that provided for a weak central government that recognized the several states as a loose association of pseudo-republics.

Thankfully wise men such as Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Jay, and James Madison were aware of the flaws of the first system and plunged ahead with the adoption of a pragmatic document that would preserve the union.

Had the Constitution not been drawn up and ratified, the United States as we know it would not have survived the political-military sectional crisis known as the War of 1812, a conflict ignited by British contempt for the colonies evidenced through their impressment of American sailors and expansionist politicians inflamed by British-incited Indian attacks on western settlers who also desired the "liberation", or rather expropriation, of Canada.

New England, a region that had once been the hotbed of rebellion to King George during the Revolution, had established strong commercial ties with the Mother Country and saw the war as disastrous for their merchants. Northeastern Federalist politicians shut out from the new Democratic-Republican governing dynasty hardly contained their glee over initial American military setbacks. The more militant elements of this crowd met at the Hartford Convention to explore their options, including possibly leaving the Union.

While the northeastern secessionist push dissipated in the wake of Andy Jackson's stunning victory on the plains of Chalmette at the Battle of New Orleans, it is doubtful that the United States would have survived Mr. Madison's War intact, assuming the union under the Articles of Confederation would have made it into the 19th century.

The US Constitution was one of history's most successful political horse-trades. Small states received protection through the creation of an equally apportioned US Senate while the larger states were afforded their proportional voice in the US House of Representatives. State rights advocates were appeased by the legislatures' authority to determine the composition of their state delegations to the US Senate, until this fell victim to early 20th century populism. Classical liberals managed to have their way by locking certain protections through the Bill of Rights.

France, by comparison within a similar timeframe, needed to go through four republics (the first of questionable legitimacy), a Nazi-puppet regime, two empires, and a few kings to get it "right" with their current Fifth.

Actually Constitution Day is not really a full Federal holiday, which was snuck into an education bill by Senator Robert Byrd of WV as a rider amendment. The amendment mandates that all schools that receive Federal financing must take part in the celebration by reserving time to herald the great document, an ironic twist since one could argue that such an order violates the regularly trudged upon 10th Amendment that guarantees (HA!) states' rights.

I believe September 17th merits full national holiday status, even though it comes roughly within two weeks of the floating Labor Day holiday. The adoption of the US Constitution is only second to the day America became a sovereign state in importance.

Senator Byrd decried the reality that Americans spend more time on "Desperate Housewives" than they do focusing on the legal foundation of our Federal republic. I concur with "Sheets" on this matter on principle and for partisan reasons.

As we have seen once again with the latest ludicrous edict emanating from the California-based Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, two centuries of precedent and tradition are routinely tossed out by Federal judiciary on the whim of unelected judicial legislators.

The public would be more irate over the taxes they pay to Washington and would begin holding their state officials to a higher standard, as locals would no longer be able to bumble without consequence hoping Uncle Sam will bail them out.

New Jersey residents would no longer be financing million dollar bus stops in Alaska as less revenues stream into the Beltway for redistribution from sea to shining fjord, and instead detour straight to the state capitals.

If people became more educated on the limits of the national government's authority as intended by the Founding Fathers, there's a chance the Democratic Party would be decimated at the polls and just maybe the GOP could get back its soul.

Happy Constitution Day.