In life, generally, honorable people play by the rules. This is particularly true in the United States Senate, which has historically defined itself by its adherence to its unique rules -- rather than, say, by its representational or proportional nature. And so, as we enter the confirmation process for Elena Kagan as Supreme Court associate justice, most Republican senators have sincerely expressed their intent to apply the traditional rules of confirmation.
Those rules might be summarized as follows: (1) The president is entitled to an appointee who generally shares his views (i.e., a liberal president is entitled to a liberal justice; a conservative president is entitled to a conservative justice). (2) A nominee should be confirmed if he or she is professionally qualified and of generally good character. (3) The only exception to Rule Two is if the nominee's views are provably and dangerously outside the mainstream of respectable thought.
By those rules, most people would probably conclude that Ms. Kagan is entitled to confirmation -- although I and others would argue that her restricted views on freedom of speech would disqualify her under Rule Three above.
But I want to make a different argument in this column: The current rules are obsolete, having come into being at a time when the federal courts had not yet been consciously politicized. Today, liberal presidents attempt to use their appointments with the intent to systematically undermine -- not uphold -- the Constitution. And they do so because their vision of an ever-more-statist America is inconsistent with the Constitution's fundamental purpose: to limit the size and scope of government.
And note, this is not a case of "both sides do it," although it is true that conservative presidents look for nominees who will support original intent, strict construction or other methods of trying to adhere to the Constitution.
But -- and this is paramount -- because liberal justices tend to seek to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution while conservative justices try to hold the line: The result is an inexorable march toward undermining the Constitution, with conservative appointments functioning as mere temporary holding actions.
As a conservative, I respect Republican senators who wish to venerate well-established traditions. But now, in the fateful spring of 2010, those senators need to consider which of conflicting traditions they intend to venerate. They can either venerate the traditional rules of confirmation or they can venerate the United States Constitution -- but not both.
I introduce, as Exhibit A on behalf of this choice, the provision in Obamacare that requires every American citizen to buy a health insurance policy. When the case challenging the constitutionality of that provision reaches the Supreme Court (as about 20 state attorneys general are currently attempting to accomplish by litigation), the government will argue that it is permitted under the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce.
They will be forced to argue that the mere inaction of an individual American citizen is an act of interstate commerce worthy of regulation. If that proposition is upheld by the Supreme Court -- then we no longer have a limited government. The government would then have the power to outlaw and punish (by fine or prison term) any American's decision not to exercise, not to vote, not to eat four servings of vegetables a day -- any human inaction would be sanctionable under the Interstate Commerce Clause -- and then adios liberty.
The president, who knows nominee Elena Kagan personally from their university days together, doubtlessly has chosen her in anticipation that she will uphold his legislation. Of course, the foregoing proposition cannot be proven because since 1987, when Robert Bork was "borked" for having opinions, Supreme Court aspirants of both left and right have learned the dreadful lesson that never expressing an opinion in print, or even in an evening bull session, is the surest path to the high court.
So the senators are stuck with the problem of having no evidence on which to base a conclusion that Ms. Kagan will likely uphold Obamacare and thereby undermine the Constitution and our ancient rights, which it has vouchsafed.
Or if that particular provision does not upset your sense of limited government, pick your poison. Obviously, from both evidence and first principles, the left -- the statists -- abhor limited government and the Constitution that was enacted to assure it.
The senators can no longer hide behind the claim that they have no evidence from the mouth or pen of a nominee that the nominee is a threat to our Constitution. If the senators (Republican and Democratic) still venerate the Constitution, they are going to have to use their common sense.
Because if they don't, you can damn well expect the voters will.
Any senator -- even with the most impeccable conservative credentials -- who votes for a nominee obviously selected to contract our liberties, will face an outraged electorate in November, or in 2012 or 2014, if that is their time in the tumbrel.
If senators continue to honor the rules of confirmation, then they are choosing to continue the march toward the end of constitutional, limited government and will deserve whatever demise the people have in store for them. There's a doozy of a storm brewing -- and not only Democratic ships are vulnerable to sinking.
Copyright 2010, Creators Syndicate Inc.
If given a choice between Somalia and Sweden, I think most Americans would opt for Sweden.
Where in the Constitution does it actually SAY that 'it's' purpose is to limit the size and scope of government? And what size and scope would hat be, Br. Blank-lee...? That's like saying "The American People say" ... while the only "American People" who are saying anything like that are you bloated right wing Gas Bags.
Putting faith in what this guy says is like trusting that admitted-drunk, Christopher Hitchens.
The real issue is: "Is what was best for a society in a horse and buggy world, in the best interests of society in a modern industrial society?"
Our Constitution is a flawed constitution. It is not in the best interests of our society today. Our founders made it virtually impossible for the PEOPLE to amend. We the PEOPLE must create a vastly superior constitution that would work much better in our modern industrial society and REPLACE the old one - like our forefathers did when creating our current one.
One example is to have the PEOPLE vote on issues. Of course that was not possible in the 1790's but with modern communication and computer technology, it is practical today. Congress will never cure itself of the bribery provided by special interests. It is not in their best interests. We must eliminate representative government.
Our economic system must be changed to provide a level playing field for all people. It must more equitably accommodate the varying degrees of inherited attributes so that those fortunate enough to have inherited higher intelligence, beauty or physical skills cannot take advantage of those person less well endowed.
Without fundamental changes, our grandchildren or theirs will be doomed to a brutal agrarian society for those few that survive the retrenchment our current economic, political, and social system has made inevitable.
I can't tell if this statement is a joke or not. If it isn't, it fails to grasp what a level playing field is with its handpicked talented athletes competing to win with a set of nondiscriminatory rules and all. Kurt Vonnegut showed us the absurdity of total egalitarianism in gut busting fashion. Fair governments enforce equal opportunity/protection for all. Not forced mediocrity on the talented/gifted/dynamic. Of course the non-gifted should be supported in their pursuit of happiness with guarantees of a true level playing field to reach their potential and a social program to help prevent them from falling through the cracks when needed. Can you imagine a world where there is no incentive for the gifted to excel in and the mediocre demand and get entitlement for things beyond their scope that they can’t even perform? The Time machine’s Eloi’s would best describe that world.
You may dislike Kagan. I may dislike her too, but to say the rules need to be changed; now, when you dislike the candidate, and that the sorts of judges, like Alito, and Scalia and Roberts, are somehow "less political" isn't inane; and flat out wrong.
In other words, it's utter rot.
Not only does he and the GOP have no idea what the word "hypocrisy" means, but they couldn't care less if they did.
scalia says he as a nonexpert can overrule science testimony of fact.
the constitution doesn't limit government. it is government by the people for the people. it unlimits government.
the current court takes away people's rights and grants them to corporations, corporations that don't live breathe die, or pay taxes and belong to nonresident aliens.
the people are the state. the state is the people. there is no 'state'. there are the people. this court gives it to corporations in place of people. gods, zygotes and blankfeins are given the rights which belong to mothers and their childrten.
you cannot have clean water if there is no way to stop some people from pissing in it. there is no way to insure wholesome food to babies if there is no one to stop anyone from putting melamine in it. in the last 30 years we have gone from a nation of communities to a nation of consumers of products. our lives health education knowledge are commodified packaged and sold to the wealthiest. government for private profit at public expense.
without muscle, the people have no protection from power. shown average incomes are lower now than 30 years ago. wealth has been concentrated in the hands of less than 1%.
If you do not understand how free markets protect citizens from harm better than dictates and mandates from politicians, then you need to learn more about how an honest business actually earns profits by engaging in honest trade with willing customers. You also need to learn the meaning of tort law.
Ponder this: the more you try to control others, the more you find yourself being controlled.
Blackwater, BP, Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, they're all looking out for you, "engaging in honest trade"?
Who's your favorite corporation, TimDD? It must be hard to decide, they're all so cute and cuddly.
We know what tort law is, and it's in the GOP crosshairs.
Blankley's excuses for this double-standard are fatuous, reliant on partisan assumptions and assessments of value (such as the sophism that "strict constructionists" may be judged by a different standard than their philosophic opponents, because they, and only they, seek to preserve and defend "real" Constitutional values). These arguments are not to be taken seriously.
I do believe, however, your take on the American way of life seems to support, "A people of the Government, by the Government and For the Government." that is quite a change from "A Government of the People, by the People and for the People." Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address. I guess the Savior of the Union was wrong again.
Perhaps there is a better answer to miss anthrope's question, though it requires going back to first principles as to moral justifications for the initiation of force and so forth... we have a nearly universal consensus supporting a right of self-defense, the use of force in defense, but not aggression, initiating force against a party that offers no harm. One critique of Miss Anthropes (tongue in cheek) example is that the initiation of the use of force is not in emancipating slaves, but in enslaving people in the first place... prohibition of slavery merely defends the right of every individual not to be enslaved. This is differentr from the use of force (government powers of compulsion) to make people to buy health insurance. Also, an activist judiciary didn't free the slaves. Hundreds of thousands of federal troops, state militia, and officials like Lincoln, did that, whether they intended to or not. The judiciary was content with slavery (Dred Scott) before the Civil War, and undisturbed by its continuation, in the form of Jim Crow, for a hundred years after. The judiciary followed, but did not lead, the trends toward equality, and away from racism. The leaders in the movement to overcome Jim Crow were not judges, but people like Malcom X and MLK, the Freedom Riders, and Rosa Parks, who were more likely to be standing in jail than sitting on the bench.