Justice David Souter’s plan to retire at the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June can only mean one thing: expect another radical leftist nominee from President Obama. But contrary to what the media says, that doesn’t mean we should just roll over and put the stamp of approval on whoever the President nominates.
It is true that if you own an apple tree, you can’t expect oranges to fall from it. It will produce only apples. In this case: bad ones. President Obama is a radical leftist. So it is no surprise that his nominations reflect and celebrate his radicalism.
Most recently, Kathleen Sebelius, one of the most radical pro-abortion governors in history, had her nomination to be the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services challenged because of her scandalous ties to a notorious late-term abortionist. We have seen everything from tax-cheats for Secretary of the Treasury (see Geithner), to porn lawyers expected to “enforce” obscenity laws (see Ogden), to judges who think praying in the name of Jesus violates the Constitution expected to “protect” our religious liberties (see Hamilton). All put forth by the Obama administration as “mainstream” nominees that should be confirmed quickly. Until Senators actually look at their records, that is. It did not take a lot of effort to discover these are some of the most radical nominees in recent memory.
Still, some hold tight to that “hope” that President Obama will nominate a “moderate” to fill Justice Souter’s vacancy.
Not a chance. We need to be prepared.
The news of the flip-flop of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-turned-D-Pennsylvania) still has Democrats beaming with joy and excitement. They feel invincible.
Justice Souter has actually opened the door of the highest court of the land so that the “change” can continue. Tradition has usually been for justices to leave when the White House is occupied by a president of the same party as the one who nominated them. Justice Souter, only 69, was appointed by a Republican president – George H. W. Bush. But in a recent article the New York Times reports that friends of Justice Souter have said that “he had often spoken privately of his intentions to be the court’s first retirement if Mr. Obama won the election last fall” (emphasis ours).
Souter wants his liberal ideology honored after he leaves. President Obama is apparently the right person for the job.
But political games should really mean nothing to us. It shouldn’t matter if a judge is a liberal, moderate or conservative in his personal views if – and this is key— he respects the Constitution as written. Any judge, liberal, moderate or conservative, who sees his role as one of bringing “progress” to the country by judicial fiat must be rejected.
That should be our concern, no matter which presidential candidate you voted for.
And it is a concern because President Obama and Vice President Biden have made some very troubling statements when it comes to judicial nominations. When asked by Gwen Ifill at the vice-presidential debate about, “a single issue, policy issue, in which [he was] forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances,” Biden said:
When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view, and had been trained in the view, that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president, had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was — had been a good student. And it didn’t take me long — it was hard to change, but it didn’t take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.
A judge’s ideology seems to be the most important thing for Vice President Biden because liberals generally want to ensure certain outcomes for certain people. Apparently, those they considered “underprivileged” should win, aside from the law. Not realizing that when the law can be bent to whatever a judge feels, then we are all the most vulnerable to abuse.
A judge is supposed to follow the law and the Constitution even when he doesn’t agree ideologically with the policy behind that law. When he is looking at a law, he must ask, “Is this law constitutional?” not “Do I prefer this policy?” Justice can be served only when Americans are confident that the protections built for them in the Constitution will always be followed.
Of course, President Obama has said famously that the law will only get you so far and then a judge must determine cases “on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
In an email response to a member of Concerned Women for America (CWA) addressing the issue, then-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-Illinois) said:
I believe, however, that a judicial nominee with a history of undermining settled law like Roe v. Wade deserves greater scrutiny. Nominees to the federal bench who are out-of-step with mainstream America should not be confirmed. That is why in the past I have opposed the nominations of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito…
The stage is being set for the Supreme Court to deal with some of the most crucial issues of our lifetime: the role of foreign law in deciding domestic cases, doctors’ right of conscience, same-sex marriage and Christians’ freedom of speech, among many others.
Bottom line is we must demand that any Supreme Court nominee be examined vigorously to ensure they will uphold the law and the United States Constitution. Senators should take a hard long look at a nominee’s entire record before they make up their minds on a nominee. And we must stand up in opposition of extreme nominees, no matter how popular the President is.
This is still a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” We cannot let a few bad apples ruin the barrel. Or the country!