Fourth Conservative on High Court Could Bring Changes

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/27/03 | Jeff Johnson

[kattracks]

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - If President Bush nominates a conservative similar in judicial philosophy to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, something Bush promised throughout his campaign, court watchers predict the nominee will survive the Senate Judiciary Committee and, if confirmed, will greatly change the face of the court.

Liberal and conservative pundits mostly agree on only two things regarding a possible vacancy on the Supreme Court: First, the nominee will emerge from the committee after scathing attacks by Democrats on a 10-9 party-line vote.

Second, if that nominee is confirmed, the decisions rendered by the court over the next 30 years could have little resemblance to those issued by the current court in the past 30 months.

John Nowacki, director of legal policy for the Free Congress Foundation, is one of many observers who believe Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is the most likely candidate for retirement.

"In the case of an O'Connor retirement, it would definitely have an effect on how the court rules in a lot of these cases that have come down as five-to-four decisions," he said.

If Bush is able to fulfill his campaign promise, it would be the worst nightmare for liberal special interests like People for the American Way (PFAW). The group's "Save the Court" website features this ominous warning:

"In the next few weeks, one or more of our Supreme Court justices could retire, opening seats that, with the Senate's approval, would be filled by President George W. Bush," the website states. "If he is allowed to put another justice like Scalia or Thomas on the Court, the effects on decades of progressive accomplishments would be devastating."

PFAW fears that conservative "textualists" such as Scalia and Thomas could "roll back the past 50 years of progress" on a number of pet liberal issues. The group fears the confirmation of a conservative justice would mean:

• The repeal of Row v. Wade , allowing states to decide whether abortion should be legal and, if so, under what circumstances;
  
• Recognition of an individual right to own and carry firearms in the Second Amendment, nullifying federal and state restrictions;
  
• Application of the First Amendment's "Establishment Clause" only to government efforts to promote religion, rather than blocking the involvement of religious individuals or groups in civic affairs;
  
• Barring the consideration of race in any government decision making, including eliminating so-called "affirmative action" programs that award preferential treatment to minorities;
  
• Striking down so-called campaign finance "reform" laws as unconstitutional limits on the free speech of donors and non-profit political groups; and
  
• Greater freedom for workers to refuse mandatory union membership and to demand that their union dues not be used to support political causes or candidates with which they disagree.
  

"The current Supreme Court's conservative majority has already begun to turn back the clock," PFAW writes, "adopting a new theory of states' rights and limiting remedies to discrimination."

Nowacki told CNSNews.com that the current Supreme Court is "certainly not a conservative court.

"It is a court that definitely does put out a lot of activist decisions," he said.

"There have been a few cases where the court has held to principles of judicial restraint, particularly when they deal with federalism and 'Commerce Clause' issues," Nowacki added. "At the same time, we've seen a court that seems willing to bend over backwards to promote a particular social agenda."

Unlike PFAW, however, Nowacki believes it would be difficult to predict how a court with four conservatives, four liberals and one moderate would rule in specific cases.

"The important point is that, if there is a constitutionalist nominee confirmed to the Supreme Court, we will certainly see more of a consistency in decision making," Nowacki said, "a nominee who looks to constitutional principles to what the text of the Constitution or of the relevant statute actually says."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) wrote to his colleagues on Wednesday, making it clear that he expects the Senate to cast a timely vote either to reject or confirm the president's pick should a vacancy arise on the Supreme Court this summer.

"[T]he Senate should act on any nominee within a reasonable time to ensure, if possible, that a new justice can assume office before the Supreme Court resumes hearing cases this fall," Frist wrote. "Any tactics to endlessly delay the process and prevent the Senate from performing its constitutional responsibility to vote on a Supreme Court nomination would be inconsistent with the Constitution and contrary to the Senate's traditional practice for more that 200 years."

E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[Joe Boucher]

conservative justices that do not legislate from the bench is one of the biggest reasons I voted for Bush.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

Any tactics to endlessly delay the process .....would be inconsistent with the Constitution."

Wake up, Sen. Frist! They will do exactly what they are doing with Estrada.

It's up to you to stop them.

[David Isaac]

I wouldn't want anyone to be holding their breath over this one. Three of the six justices in the majority on the affirmative action case, were nominated by "conservative" presidents) (Kennedy & O'Connor - Reagan and Souter - Bush Sr.)

[libertylover]

This is the sad part. Conservatives have had our chances and blown them.

[LS]

True, but do you all want to know a secret? You can put anyone on the Supreme Court this side of Pat Buchanan and NOBODY is going to touch Roe v. Wade. They may make incremental rollbacks, but that ruling is not going to be changed at the federal level. Pro-life people better get used to that, and understand that the only victory over abortion is going to come one at a time in the struggle for women's souls.

[Noachian]

Here we go again. Hoping that the next Supreme judge will do right by The People. Maybe he will - maybe not. One thing is sure though: once he's put in place no one will be able to get rid of him. That's NOT the way a Republic should work.

Republics, by their very nature, abhor absolute rule. Free people remain free because they control the politicians - not the other way around.

A Constitutional Amendment to have ALL judges elected by The People would plug the hole left in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers. It's true that Constitutional Amendments are not easy to come by and such an amendment would take time and work. But, the courts are political entities and as such are filled with politicians who respond to PRESSURE.

If we've learned anything from the Left it's that a handful of dedicated, vocal, people, applying POLITICAL PRESSURE at a well defined target, can alter political decisions. And, the decisions of the courts are nothing more than just that - political decisions.

All that's needed are dedicated people that aren't afraid to make waves.

[Maria S]

From the article: "...the nominee will emerge from the committee after scathing attacks by Democrats on a 10-9 party-line vote."

I truly hope whoever the nominee is, he/she has a strong heart, stronger stomach, and a LOT of patience. It's going to be necessary to withstand the onslaught from the democrats!

[LiteKeeper]

SITREP