Sunday, June 26, 2005

It will be interesting to see how the Left-wing pressure groups spin the issues when the time comes for Bush to nominate someone to the Supreme Court. You'll get the usual presentation of false choices:

liberal leaning = grants rights = Good
conservative leaning = prohibits rights = Bad

You'll get the usual hyperactive boilerplate about how

women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids

if the Bush nominee was to gain confirmation.

All of this is terribly false and will do this process and the country a disservice.

The left-wing groups love to present the choices as either between conservative nominees versus moderate, centrist, or liberal nominees. You'll also often get the choice characterized as "strict-constructionist" versus "loose-constructionist" which unhelpfully harkens back to high school social studies definitions - providing that level of understanding as you would expect. Again, I say it will be interesting to see how the left-wing groups spin the issues simply because they will have a hard time squaring their positions against some recent decisions that the Supreme Court has handed down. Clinton's two appointees: Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg passed the left-wing sniff test with nary a mention from these groups that these nominees would bring back the days of the back-alleys, lynch mobs, and other horrors. Yet interestingly enough, both these Justices, in recent cases, have sided with the majority in allowing for increased federal law enforcement against medical pot producers and approved broader powers for local governments to seize personal property. Important to mention is that Justice Clarence Thomas, oft-mentioned by left-wing groups in negative tones, dissented in both cases - believing that the Constitution affords the federal government no expansion of powers in both these cases. However, regarding the two Clinton judges, was it right for the left-wing groups to paint these Justices as protectors of rights?

I can imagine that the left-wing pressure groups will spin it this way come election time: The Rehnquist Court has determine it okay for the federal government to allow for added powers of property seizure and encroached on state's rights to decide what methods of medical care is appropriate for their citizens. I doubt they will honestly inform their ideological kin that it was their own leftist judges who made these decisions possible. I also highly doubt they will inform their ideological kin that it was the conservative judges on the Court (Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor) who dissented from these decisions.

I believe these groups may be wondering if they have gotten too much of what they wished for. My question to leftists is, when all you allow for is the President and the Senate to send up nominees who are viewed as "right protectors" you're probably also siding with a nominee whose philosophy views the exercise of federal power and oversight favorable - how else to best protect rights? If that's what you want they you better also accept that federal power will grow in instances where leftist politics may have demanded otherwise (medical pot versus expanded federal enforcement to prevent medical pot; private property rights of poor and middle income homeowners versus expanded federal and municipal approval to seize property for private economic development/big business interests). In essence, if you're comfortable with expanded federal power for some things, then you'll have to also accept expanded federal power for other things (things that you may not have wanted the feds to stick their noses into). Those are the breaks.

It would be interesting to see if after these decisions and a few more if leftists begin to find favor with the philosophies of federal and judicial restraint. If so, they better ask their pressure groups to keep them better informed and not present such ridiculous false choices as they have in the past. That would make for a far better nomination and confirmation process and perhaps build a Supreme Court that truly is able to protect rights for individuals against the bigger powers. Just a wish, but I don't think they have it in them. The test will be what rhetoric they employ in the upcoming elections/nominations.


Post a Comment

<< Home