Liberals Worried About Supreme Court ‘Balance’
Ruth Marcus’ Washington Post column is nothing without her hyperventillating over the Supreme Court’s balance. Here’s what she’s written:
The interesting, and unsettling, aspect of this term is not how Kennedy voted but what it could have looked like just one liberal retirement away. It’s not simply that four justices appear to have a far-reaching view of presidential power (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. didn’t participate in the military tribunals case at the high court, but as an appellate judge he had voted to uphold the administration’s position).
Actually, the Founding Fathers anticipated the need to wage war and codified into the Constitution extended presidential powers. That the courts and Congress have whittled those powers down doesn’t make it right.
What’s scary isn’t the fact that conservatives take the words of the Constitution seriously. I’d posit that what’s scary is that (a) 4 liberal idiots in black robes think that the Constitution means whatever they think it should mean and (b) that they can make law without going through the legislative process. I’d suggest that we’re more endangered by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter essentially making this a government of, by and for the judiciary, not the people.
The Founding Fathers worried that one branch would get more powerful than the other two. That’s what’s happening now with the Supreme Court deciding that the right of private property should be rewritten without legislative debate (Kelo v. New London), the right to speak about politics without restraint should be abolished (the Court’s upholding of BCRA as not infringing on my First Amendment rights in the name of good government) & now the 4 idiots being joined by a power-hungry semi-conservative jurist saying that presidents don’t have the power to protect us from our enemies.
This is a court that could be a single vote away, if that, from crippling affirmative action; curtailing, if not abolishing, abortion rights; dramatically lowering the wall of separation between church and state; and limiting congressional authority under the Constitution’s commerce clause to protect the environment and enact other laws of national sweep.
Heaven forbid the justices from shrinking the abuse of the Commerce Clause to be a catchall for doing whatever the federal courts want to do. God forbid that the Justices re-establish Constitutional logic to the debate on the Establishment/Free Exercise clauses concerning the practice of religion. Here’s what the relevant section of the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It sounds Ms. Marcus would prefer living in an America where people of faith wouldn’t be able to “freely exercise” their religious faith in public. Unfortunately for Ms. Marcus, that isn’t what the ruling would be if the justices used the clear translation of the Constitution.
President Bush or his Republican successor, if there is one, could soon have the chance to cement the impregnable court majority that has long eluded conservatives. By contrast, the election of a Democratic president in 2008 would probably merely halt the court’s steady drift rightward. Unless the vacancy comes from an unexpected quarter, the best a Democratic president could hope for is maintaining the current conservative tilt, and even that could be optimistic.
President Bush’s Republican successor will move the court rightward, appointing strict constructionists to the courts, thereby re-establishing Constitutional sanity to the high court’s rulings. That isn’t something to be feared. Rather, it’s something to be rejoiced over.
Technorati Tags: Bush, SCOTUS, Chief Justice Roberts, Kelo v. New London, McCain-Feingold, First Amendment
Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog
July 5th, 2006 at 9:09 am
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: First Amendment, SCOTUS, Beltway Media, Judiciary, President Bush | [...]
July 5th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
What a joke! Since when are the DFL worried about “balance” in the judiciary? Hell, “balance” is their worst nightmare.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
I think “balance” is what the writers of the constitution wanted, being 4 to 5 now is closer to what they intended. Now, I wish the “balance” to tilt slightly to the right, since that is where my views go.
I’d like to see abortion abolished (or at the very least, abolished with strict exemptions such as in a reported rape). I can’t stand the murder of innocents… and who’s more innocent than a child? They call us hypocrites because we generally support the death penalty… the way I see it, when someone is given the death penalty it is because they have already proven that they can’t “play nice” with the rest of us… but I’m getting off topic.
The abuse of the Supreme Court’s power is getting bolder and larger every day. I hate that they are on the court for life. They should serve one 12 year term and if you stagger those out, each presidential term would put forth two new justices (except one every fourth term), then the court would resemble the way the country has been voting for president. Elect conservative presidents, have a conservative court and vice versa.
The court is not supposed to be a bastion of liberal views (nor even conservative ones)… it is supposed to uphold the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America… their personal views SHOULD NOT come into it. What does the CONSTITUTION say… that is what matters. Isn’t a judge supposed to be impartial? Obviously, they cannot be completely impartial, for we are all humans and therefore fallible. I was so angry I couldn’t even see straight when the Supreme Court was using international law to help interpret a ruling. International Law cannot run this country. It should not. The USA is who we are today because we rejected most of what the rest of the world was doing and set up our own system in the Constitution. Following that is what makes the USA great.