Posted on 06/28/2005 8:33:25 PM PDT by CHARLITE
President Bush came to Washington with the goal of serving as a domestic reformer. In 2000, he became one of the few Republican candidates to focus less on defense and more on reforms to domestic social programs and public education. That was before 9/11, and the ensuing wars in the Middle East. Then, it appeared that the audacious Bush doctrine would set the pace for the ultimate legacy that will be George W. Bush. However, early into his second term, President Bush has another opportunity to leave behind a sturdy legacy in the form of the court system. In the clash of American culture, President Bush can give conservatives a sturdy victory with a strong Supreme Court.
That has been tradition for some time. Presidents have long placed their constitutional ideology on the bench, but now the Senate may pose a threat to the very power of the executive. While President Bush may desire to leave behind a solid legacy in the courtroom, the Senate may use and abuse its power to harm the agenda of Mr. Bush. Last week, that became evident in the Senate chamber as squabbling over a potential Supreme Court vacancy had already begun.
The Senate has always played an "advise and consent" role when dealing with nominations. Senators were expected to send the President pieces of advice on the type of nominee desired for a certain position, and then they needed to evaluate and confirm any nominees based on qualification and ability. Now, the Senate wants to break with all precedent and add the term "consultation" into its role in dealing with nominees. Democrats in the Senate have already stated that they will likely not support a nominee unless President Bush meets and consults with them on any nominee.
A vacancy on America's Supreme Court does not seem too distant in time, and these difficult decisions must be made on the Senate floor. Will the "greatest deliberative body in the world" preserve and defend this union by allowing President Bush to appoint a nominee that reflects the constitutional ideology of the nation that elected the President. In recent history, this has occurred. When Reagan was in office, and Americans wanted a conservative interpretation of the constitution, Antonin Scalia was confirmed with a nearly unanimous vote. Scalia was a conservative jurist, and he seemed to fit the direction President Reagan wanted the Constitution interpreted. He also matched the views of the people in the 49 states that placed President Reagan in office.
However, such consideration was not limited to the Reagan administration. President Clinton, with his Democratic majority of the populous, placed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court in 1993. There were countless reasons for Republicans to oppose Justice Ginsburg. She had worked as legal council for the American Civil Liberties Union, not exactly a non-partisan organization. She had cast doubt on the legality of traditional marriage laws, and she had opined that the consent age for sexual activity should be lowered to the age of twelve. Still, Justice Ginsburg was passed by a large margin.
Although I dislike the opinions of Justice Ginsburg and admire those of Justice Scalia, I believe that both have opined in a diligent and respectful margin on the Supreme Court. Any Bush nominee likely will do the same. This also proves that for decades, Presidents have been able to create a legacy by dictating the direction of the highest court. Some liberals may now say this to be unfair. However, America is still a democracy, and it elects a President to oversee the nominations process. As William McKinley stated in 1891: "Unlike any other nation, here the people rule, and their will is the supreme law."
As President Bush may soon have an opportunity to appoint a new jurist to the Supreme court, he deserves to be extended the same consideration and respect of administrations past. The Senate should be allowed to ask the tough questions, to search the record of judicial decisions, and they should certainly never bend to the President for undue purposes. It is the checks and balances of legislative against executive that has built this nation. However, the legislative branch should offer only advice and consent, and they should do so in a bi-partisan manner. This is not an opportunity to debate and discuss social politics. Instead, it should serve as an opportunity to determine if the nominee can be unbiased and offer responsible opinions on some of the most crucial cases in this nation.
If President Bush is to achieve his domestic agenda of having a strong America that respects the cultural bonds of faith that have built this nation, it is integral that he build a strong judiciary that interprets the Constitution in a strict manner. While the times have changed, the words that have framed this nation, the belief in freedom and the power of the people, have not. Yes, President Bush wants to build a more conservative court, but since he has been elected by the people, he deserves the power to use his executive discretion. If the Senate is allowed to filibuster the decisions of this President, the executive position is limited to a figurehead, and the great checks and balances system faces destruction. It has already been threatened this year, but hopefully the respect and debate that built this nation will keep it intact.
About the Writer: Scott Gray is an aspiring politician and student from Birmingham, Alabama. He believes that youths have a strong voice in America’s future and believes that they have an obligation to act as responsible leaders in America’s future. His conservative writing can at times be more moderate than some conservative voices, but he remains a dedicated believer in the growth of conservative thought in America. At his school, he serves in Student Government and participates in the Forensics program at his high school. A student presently in a public school, he is all too aware of the problems facing the students of today.
In his spare time, Mr. Gray pulls for UAB (University of Alabama-Birmingham) in basketball and football. He wants to go to college, however, in Washington, DC. However, his favorite hobby is watching NASCAR racing. He pulls for driver Stanton Barrett in the NASCAR Busch Series and the ever-controversial Kurt Busch in the NEXTEL Cup Series.
Comments: Dkilgray@aol.com,
Until the Democrats reverse this trend, I see no way return to more reasonable times.
Our (The Right) responsibility is to demand that our leaders take all necessary steps to defeat the Democratic strategy.
"Never, never, never give up."
Winston Churchill
Until the Democrats reverse this trend, I see no way return to more reasonable times.
Our (The Right) responsibility is to demand that our leaders take all necessary steps to defeat the Democratic strategy.
"Never, never, never give up."
Winston Churchill
Nice article, but meaningless. What 'should be' is easy to write about. What is rather more of a task is coming up with a way to defeat the Democrats in the Senate.
Such a task is made more difficult by all too many invertebrate Republicans; alas, Lady Thatcher is no longer doing backbone transplants, as she did in the case of the Older Bush.
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.