The cowboys-and-Indians, good-guys-versus-bad-guys theme that pervades the rhetoric of many a GOP-hack talking head never fails so miserably than when attention focuses upon the courts. The Supreme Court is the most out-of-control branch of government. It is also the most consistently Republican. Republican presidents appointed seven of the nine current justices. In addition to the sitting disappointments, Republicans also appointed such past losers as William Brennan, Earl Warren, and Harry Blackmun. When it comes to the judiciary, count on the Democrats to wear black hats and (just so your life will hold an occassional pleasant surprise) count on Republicans to wear them too. This makes Constitutionalists outgunned.
Congressman Ron Paul addresses the partisanship that obscures the real line that divides good from bad judges. It is activist versus originalist, not Democrat versus Republican or liberal versus conservative, that separates wannabe legislators from true, blind justices. And because unelected judges have usurped the charge of elected legislators, the judicial appointment process takes on the baseness common in elections.
"The bitterness and controversy that often surround the nomination of Supreme Court justices in recent decades makes perfect sense when we consider the lawmaking and lawbreaking power that activist federal courts possess," the Texas congressman argues. "Federal courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, have long since ceased serving as referees who guard against government overreaching. Instead they have become unelected, unaccountable purveyors of social policy for the entire nation. Bitter partisan fights over Supreme Court nominees are inevitable simply because so much is at stake." If judges read the Constitution as it reads--and Ron Paul correctly points out that the document is "written in plain, forthright text, and there is nothing mystical about it"--rather than as they want it to read, then the political sympathies of the presiding judges would matter very little. When presidents grant primacy to the political sympathies of judges, e.g., Republican governor Earl Warren, Republican state senator Sandra Day O'Connor, Bush loyalist Harriet Miers, then the Constitution necessarily becomes secondary.
Ron Paul concludes: "The fundamental point that has been lost in our national discourse is this: the Constitution prohibits the federal government, including the federal judiciary, from doing all kind of things. Until we have federal judges who understand this, it matters little what political stripes or experience they bring to the bench."
Good judges will happen by accident or will be the result of efforts by partisans of the Constitution. Playing political games with the SCOTUS is disgraceful and ineffective. The political pygmies of today. least of all Bush, cannot outsmart the founders. We will end up with disastrous justices unless we submit to the Constitution.
Was it Damon Runyon that said words to the effect that "the race goes not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong, but that's the way to bet"?
In a similar vein, all Republicans aren't strict constructionists, and all strict constructionists aren't Republicans, but that's the way to bet.
For that matter, I saw a bumper sticker that said "God isn't a Republican". I suggest a modified version: God may not be a Republican, but Satan sure as hell is a Democrat!
Dear Dan: Joe Sobran says to tell you that he "agrees with you heartily."
