GOP has good chance to turn tide on court
President Bush's choice of Harriet Miers as the next Supreme Court nominee was a safe bet.
While John Roberts, one of the most qualified nominees in decades, was recently rejected by 22 of 44 Democratic senators, Miers will still be lucky to get any Democratic votes.
The Democrats in the Senate will obviously insist that the next nominee must be a mainstream one. That's fine with me.
Mainstream America (the majority) supports restrictions on abortion rights, supports the death penalty, is anti-gay marriage, is anti-race based affirmative action, rejects expansion of the liberal welfare state and is pro-religion. Bring on a mainstream argument, I say.
Of course, by mainstream, the Democrats mean socially liberal, not mainstream. What the Dems won't allow is a less than socially liberal conservative to pass. As a minimum, they must protect their on-demand-abortion constituency at all costs.
You can count on the nominee process to be as bitter as ever seen.
After all, the balance of the court is at stake, and that balance will be conservative to some degree. The Dems want a liberal in conservative clothing.
Bush is in a can't-win situation. He faces an uphill battle with not just the Democrats and their constituents, but the Republicans and theirs as well. So given the circumstances, he should keep the nuclear option open and use every bit of political capital he has to get the nominee selected.
This is a monumental time in history. The Republicans have a historical opportunity turn the tide of decades of social disintegration caused by our activist liberal Supreme Court.
- Chuck LeFurge
Hoopla of politics deprives Americans of unbiased court
After listening to all the hoopla surrounding the selecting of a new Supreme Court justice, I am baffled and somewhat less than enthralled with how we go about it.
Firstly, are we to understand that he or she will be chosen according to whether his or her political philosophy conforms to the ideology of whichever party rules Congress?
In other words, no deviations from the party line will be tolerated or at least, condoned, even if the judge has a change of heart regarding a specific issue at hand.
I have always believed that a judge, in matters of constitutional law, must rule in accordance with the law. But when dealing with matters not covered in the Constitution, such as same-sex marriage and assisted suicide for the terminally ill, the judge must be willing to rule in accordance with the dictates of his conscience.
I don't believe that a prospective candidate for the court should be called upon to reveal how he or she will rule on a case until all the arguments have been presented and all of the evidence has been gathered.
In my opinion, when the congressional interrogators insist that the juror in question take a political stance, whether from the conservative right or the liberal left, they are overstepping their bounds and depriving all of us of a free and unbiased court.
- George Morin