Posted on 11/10/2004 7:04:08 AM PST by CHARLITE
With Election Day come and gone, President George W. Bush and the Republican National Committee have got to be feeling fairly good. Values voters have made Republicans the majority party. Increased margins in the U.S. House and Senate give Republicans a solid majority, albeit vulnerable to filibuster. With U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) ceding his seat to former U.S. Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.), the so-called obstructionist-in-chief will be forced to watch from the sidelines. Poor Daschle. From last summer, I vividly remember seeing him enter the Senate dining room while I ate lunch with U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.). The hapless Daschle was introduced by one of his colleagues as the next “Majority Leader” of the Senate. Such was not to be.
Of course, the real prize from November 2 is “4 more years!” The real question, then, is how shall we spend them? Will Republicans maintain their support among values voters to remain the majority party? One issue may determine their collective success or failure.
Like most legal scholars, ‘The Duke Law Conservative’ remains eminently concerned with the future makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal scholars, however, have a lot of company in their concern. Values voters want strict constructionists that write their opinions based on the Constitution, not activists that rewrite the Constitution based on their opinions.
I earned a 4.0 in Constitutional Law, but learned only one absolute. Today, the law is what the judges say it is. Judicial appointments color our Constitution, causing such selections to be of utmost importance. Chief Justice William Rehnquist has recently undergone throat surgery following a diagnosis of thyroid cancer. He is likely to step down shortly. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is also nearing retirement. To be frank, most of the court is graying fast. Bush will probably have to fill anywhere from two to four vacancies over his next term.
In this matter, Bush must avoid the sins of his father; conservatives will not accept another David Souter. 51% of America weighed in on the Right side of our nation’s debate, and we expect some results. The Democrats are already drawing a proverbial line in the sand at Supreme Court nominations, characterizing Roe v. Wade as holy writ and threatening to filibuster. Not satisfied with disqualifying nominees who openly disagree with the dubious precedent of Roe v. Wade, the Democrats have taken to blocking any and all conservatives. Tongue in cheek, Daschle and company swore that Miguel Estrada, a respected lawyer, held views that were “outside the mainstream” and permanently forestalled his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A conservative superstar and American success story, Democrats feared the very real possibility that Estrada might become the first Hispanic justice on the U.S. Supreme Court during a second Bush term.
Let’s face the truth. No matter how qualified or reasonable our conservative jurists are the Democrats will cry Nazi every time. Bush has two simple choices: appease his enemies with activist appointments or repay his base with strict constructionists. Should he choose the former, Bush would earn a week of favorable coverage from the New York Times and enrage millions of Christian conservatives who would likely never vote Republican again. Choose the latter, and a feeble filibuster would stay his hand for a year at the most. I say choose the latter. For that matter, if angering the Left is inevitable, you might as well enjoy it. My recommendation for U.S. Supreme Court: the Honorable Kenneth Starr.
Comments: John.Plecnik@law.duke.edu
John T. Plecnik is a twenty-year-old law student at Duke University and Executive Editor of The Devil’s Advocate. As Policy Advisor for the Duke Chapter, John authored the first-ever statewide platform for the North Carolina Federation of College Republicans.
I want a non activist court.
Amen!
I want a court that will read the Constitution - the plain language of the Constitution and not make new law to fit their ideology. Is that too much to ask? I also want a court that won't look to international law and apply it when making their rulings. That also is apparently too much to ask.
Conservative judges are prioity #1
A ho-ho-ho, a he-he-he, and a hardy har-har-har.
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO STOP IT?
If God didn't want them sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep.
I would just like to have judges that went by our Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.
There was once a time when this was true, to a degree.
But now we are in a struggle to have one over the other.
So.......... I want conservatives! Very conservative!
Damn! You want to see the RATS go absolutely nuts, there could be no better choice, except maybe bringing Robert Bork back! I like it. ;^)
Uh-huh.
Tom Daschle ceded his seat the same way the terrorists are ceding Fallujah.
The word you're looking for is "losing".
Anybody that does NOT think this is true? Let me know so I can sell you an island in Oklahoma.
It is now time to stop the RINOs on FR and in government from getting their way. No more excuses.
And while we're at it Mr President, can we talk about your immigration "policy"...or is that "migrant" policy as you and Powell like to call them. Viva Azatlan?
Oh, and about that "Islam is a Religion of Peace" comment you made....
Nominate Miguel Estrada for the USSC. They'll go ballistic.
Or Charles Pickering. It's fun to think of ways to torment the left. ;^)
I want an "activist" court - one that will actively work to return our legal system to strict-Constructionist principles!
We need a Court that will not shy away from controversial cases, one that will encourage the review of past liberal activist opinions, any opinion that is not firmly and expressly supported by the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.