Thursday, July 07, 2005

What Christians Expect

Fundamentalist Christians should pick the next two Supreme Court Justices. It's only fair.

After all, with the help of moderates and who knows what else, they gave George W. Bush the only majority a Republican Presidential candidate has won since 1988.

Seven of our nine current justices were appointed by Republicans, yet you'd think from the outcry that Franklin Roosevelt had succeeded in packing the court with commies over the past three generations. Here's the roll call:

• President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens.
• President Reagan gave us William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O’Connor.
• President Bush Senior split the ticket with David Souter and Clarence Thomas, the most thinly credentialled judge on the Court.
• President Clinton named Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The problem, you see, is that too many of those appointees have been acting like jurists instead of jihadists.

According to Rick Scarborough, who has shaped himself a nice career around rallying rightwingers against "activist" judges, here is "what Christians expect in a nominee":

God has given the president an opportunity to take an important step toward restoring America as one nation under His sovereign authority — toward ending the scourge of abortion-on-demand, averting the plague of homosexual marriage and restoring the right of Americans to publicly acknowledge their Creator.

Those of us who supported Mr. Bush so loyally have every right to expect that the president will tap a strict constructionist for the high court. Over the past five years, George W. Bush has promised time and again to nominate justices of the Scalia/Thomas mold — fearless individuals of principle who are willing to endure the establishment's scorn to uphold constitutional rights and oppose judicial tyranny.

O'Connor's replacement must be a man or woman who will read the Constitution as it was written, instead of reading their own views into it. He must be willing to let legislatures legislate. If the Constitution needs revision, he or she must insist on the process set forth in Article 5, instead of activists on the court amending our national charter at whim. In short, the next justice must be dedicated to interpreting the law instead of making laws.

When questioned on Roe v. Wade recently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is." That's not just wrong, but dangerously so. When the Supreme Court said the Constitution protected slavery, and later segregation, did it? The meaning of the Constitution is clear. Members of the Supreme Court aren't magicians who can change the meaning of words and phrases with a wave of their hand.

President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee must be committed to the Constitution, the way true Believers are committed to the Bible.

Then there's Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, who says Alberto Gonzales would be a “supremacist judge … the type that think whatever they say overrides the other branches.” She's part of a chorus trying to paint Gonzales as the second coming of Harry Blackmun. I'm not the only one who sees this as potential misdirection play to soften up the opposition.

Or read another right-inflected view on why Gonzales may be a wrong choice in Al Gonzales, Abe Fortas and Cronyism.

On The American Street, eRobin writes: "Here’s one way the Dems can stop playing into BushCo’s hands: put forward a slate of judges whom they find acceptable."

I don't see any reason why Bush should wait any longer to announce his nominee. Here's a man who clearly is practiced at unerringly interpreting the Word and never reading his own views into it. Dr. Rick Scarborough for Associate Justice!


Blogger bob said...

These people's arguments are so patently illogical that it makes me wonder, oh never mind, I don't really wonder. Lack of logic has never really been a handicap to a political movement.

5:19 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home