That is why when President Obama was elected and liberals gained a majority in the Senate there was great rejoicing among the elite, because they believed (and still do) that they would get all their policies enacted and, above all, pack the courts with activists that can help them advance their agenda at an even faster pace. Confirming judges with “empathy” for their causes was, therefore, a top priority.
But nine months into the Obama presidency, they have not seen the progress they want, and the anxiety from the radical left keeps growing by the minute. Articles calling for the President to speed up the process on judicial nominations have greatly increased in recent days, and though they are careful not to formally criticize the President (we know what happens if you dare to do that), the message is being heard loud and clear by the White House and the Democratic leadership.
Some believe the slow pace on judicial nominations comes as a result of President Obama taking on too much too soon. They believe the President has lost track of the importance of this issue amongst health care, bailouts, Afghanistan, running with Oprah to get the Olympics, and other things. And though the liberal elite love what the President is trying to do, the recent uproar against the President’s health care reform at town halls and tea parties have reminded them what they have known for a long time: when Americans see liberal ideology in action, they reject it.
That leads them back to their unelected friends again: the judges. It is activist judges who will ensure their agenda remains in effect, and actually expands, even after they loose some seats in the next election.The liberal elite know that much of what they want to accomplish tramples on long-standing constitutional principles like freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The enactment of “hate crimes” legislation is perhaps the most recent example. So they have to be prepared to defend their positions in the courts and, without activist judges willing to look beyond the text of the Constitution, they have no chance.
Enter, then, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 (S. 1653). In an effort to appease their constituency, liberals not only want to nominate liberal judicial activists — like Judge David Hamilton, who ordered prayers in the name of Jesus be stopped but said praying in the name of “Allah” was okay — but they want to significantly expand the number of judges at the federal level, therefore expanding their reach. The Federal Judgeship Act will create 63 new federal judges — 51 in federal district courts and 12 at the appellate court level.
On the surface, liberals cry about the number of cases and the need to alleviate backlog. But underneath that façade we can still hear echoes of their unprecedented obstruction of President Bush’s judicial nominees. Where were their concerns about backlogs then?
But any reasonable observer can also see that there is almost no chance they would consider doing that (unless of course it was politically expedient). Liberals are not in the business of being sensible or reasonable; they have the opportunity to do unprecedented damage to our foundations, and judges are crucial to their success. They can’t loose this opportunity.
So it is back to “Plan A” for liberals.
For conservatives, that means that in the middle of everything, we must prepare ourselves for more and more pressure on the issue. And as we consider how to best stand against their “progressive” agenda, we must remember those sneaky operatives masquerading as judges, and we must stand firm against them.
I know conservatives are taking great refuge in thinking about the next elections. It is very encouraging to remember that “we the people” are still in charge and we can throw out those senators who have trampled our trust. But we must remember that if those senators are successful in packing the courts with liberal judicial activists, there is nothing “we the people” can do about that in the next election.