Advice and Consent

The nomination announcement was barely over when the rebuttal by Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer hit the air waves. From my perspective, the two were not outlining a plan where they would provide advice and ultimately consent to the President on his nomination. The advice portion will likely turn into a televised session of character assassination, while the consent portion may even bring the threat of a filibuster, when consent of the entire Senate would require only 51 affirmative votes. Even Robert Bork got the courtesy of an up-and-down vote.

But again, the political machinery and obstructionist view of the minority party is up & running, alive & well. And much to the dissatisfaction of Harry Reid who finds the nomination poor timing for the news cycle. After all, it is taking the Karl Rove non-scandal off of the front page, although it might still be on the front of the New York Times. I would not know. I don't read that fish wrap.

[As an aside, there is mounting evidence against the legitimacy of the faux scandal and trumped up 'crime' based on, of all things, a friend-of-the-courts brief filed by 36 news outlets. The 'agent' was likely 'outed' by the CIA itself. But, as mentioned in my previous post, I won't bore you with details. The facts are out there and the truth is pretty easy to see, if you look for it.]

BUT, I digress. So now the big news is John Roberts. He is a very intelligent individual, is obviously qualified, has been complemented by colleagues of both political parties, and seems to be a pretty squeaky clean kind of guy. Barring some bombshell in his hearings (and not a made up Anita Hill kind of bombshell, although being pro-life may be a bombshell to the Left, perhaps even an 'extraordinary circumstance') he should become the 109th justice to the Supreme Court. But, will it be that easy?

Dick Durbin classified the nominee as (and promised the yet to be held hearings will be) "controversial". Why? Will this be another Democrat and left wing attack of the Administration's agenda? Chuck Schumer has already said that he is concerned about the nominee replacing the "swing vote" lost by the retirement of Justice O'Connor. What?

Will it be so bad to have a judge who interprets the Constitution? It is if you're liberal and losing elections, losing ballot initiatives, and the only hope is to break the law and let the most liberal courts "sort it out." Or perhaps the courts can just make the law for you. The left is way off base here because they are so guilty of using the courts in a politically tactical manner. It worries them that Roberts could be another Scalia, even though he could be another Souter. They want to cling to power and they are doing it through the courts, by judicial fiat.

The issue here is the left, but if the roles were reversed it could be the right as well (although many conservatives favor originalist jurists). The pressure of the extremes is dangerous. And the heavy handedness of the minority of the US Senate should not dictate to the majority. The Senate should hold hearings. But at the end of the day they should vote. Hopefully the questions that they ask will pertain to the willingness of the candidate to do the job of a Supreme Court justice...to interpret the Constitution.

And when it is all said and done, hopefully we will get a justice who does just that. Not a "swing voter", but a justice who will do the job at hand. A justice who will interpret our Constitution and not base decisions on international law. A justice who will use precedent wisely, but will not stretch a vague reference in precedent to make the law say something it does not. A justice who is not afraid to defer rights to the States, as they were originally intended to be. A justice who will allow America to be a sovereign nation. A justice who does the job judicially, not socially.

I hope the politics of the situation don't cloud the advice portion of the process, but I am afraid they already have.