Constructionist v. Consensus

Not surprisingly, the Sunday morning shows focused on Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement and the ugly fight that will ensue in the process to replace her.

I think it is the height of hypocrisy for liberals to be blubbering about Bush's responsibility to unite the country by nominating a "consensus candidate." That term is lib-speak for a nominee that will legislate from the bench, rather than interpret the law.

On the one hand, the libs are saying that the "radical right" is trying to push their extremist political agenda down the throats of the American people by way of judicial nominees. They say that is inappropriate. On the other hand, the libs are promoting their own political agenda. They are transparent in their hypocrisy.

Just yesterday, there was a hastily organized march by NOW to promote their call for a Supreme Court nominee that will maintain their agenda.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.(AP)-- Chanting "Not the church, not the state; women must choose their fate," hundreds of members of the National Organization for Women rallied for abortion rights Saturday as President Bush prepares to select a new U.S. Supreme Court justice.

NOW shifted the agenda for its three-day annual convention after the announcement Friday that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was retiring.

What a lame chant!

"Not the state," "choose their fate"?

Do these people have a clue about how abortion came to be legal in the U.S.? Clearly, they don't.

It's funny that their march is about demanding that the state listen to them while they chant that the state should have nothing to do with a women deteriming her fate. (Of course, to them "fate" refers to women having the right to end a life, something the state granted.)

I digress. Back to judicial nominees and the Sunday morning shows.

The debates centered on what Bush should do in choosing a replacement for O'Connor. The discussions revolved around constructionist v. consensus nominees. (To be clear, it should be noted that Justice Scalia prefers to call himself an "orginalist," rather than a "constructionist.")

On FOX New Sunday, Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, said Bush must follow in the footsteps of his Republican presidential predecessors. She kept insisting that Bush should act like President Reagan when he chose a nominee to replace O'Connor.

That sounds good to me. I'm on board with Bush acting like Reagan.

"On June 17, 1986, President Reagan nominated Scalia to the Supreme Court, to fill the seat left vacant by the elevation of William Rehnquist to chief justice. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Scalia said that he considered the most important part of the Constitution to be the system of "checks and balances among the three branches....so that no one of them is able to 'run roughshod' over the liberties of the people." Scalia was confirmed unanimously (98-0) by the Senate September 17."

I would love to see the Senate unanimously confirm a nominee like Scalia.

On ABC's This Week, Ted Kennedy was bloviating like only he is capable of bloviating. He demanded that Bush consult with Dems and pick a nominee that will make them happy.

I think Bush made his stance on Supreme Court nominees very clear prior to his reelection. He said that he would nominate someone that would strictly interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. Bush stated on numerous occasions, like during every stump speech and on the televised debates, that his favorite justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Just in case Kennedy and the leftist special interest groups haven't noticed:

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED BUSH TO A SECOND TERM. HE WON.

Don't the American people have a right to have their voices heard? Or, are Kennedy and the liberals trying, in effect, to overturn his election? Are the Dems attempting to disenfranchise all of the Americans that voted Bush back into office so that he could make good on his campaign promises?

Kennedy is leading the Dems in saying it would be an abuse of power for the president to choose a nominee that is not to the left's liking.

First off, I'd like to know where in the Constitution it states that a president abuses his power by choosing a judicial nominee to be confirmed by the Senate. A president can nominate anyone he wants. There is no abuse of power there. NONE. Kennedy is misleading Americans when he suggests that Bush can't nominate whomever he believes is fit to serve on the Court.

I, like Bush, believe it's an abuse of power for judges to legislate from the bench.

The fact is there is a disturbing trend of activist judges abusing their power by writing law through their rulings, out of thin air creating new laws and doing the work of legislators.

The U.S. Constitution delineates the duties of the branches of government, and establishes checks and balances. The legislative branch writes the law. The judicial branch interprets the law.

It's time to restore the workings of the U.S. government according to the Constitutional foundation laid out by the founding framers.

On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush put his hand on the Bible and pledged:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I expect him to do precisely that, by choosing a Supreme Court nominee that will uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it.