Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Bush Ready to Name His Nominee?

A lot of people have spent a lot of time and a lot of money to help George Bush win the Presidency. A lot of those people spent that time and money for one fundamental issue: an expected vacancy on the Supreme Court. Even for those for whom the Supreme Court was not the front and center issue in 2000 or 2004, the recent Kelo decision on property rights has brought that issue to the forefront.

If Bush disappoints his base with another David Souter, the GOP will almost certainly lose the next presidential election. It will lose because the Republican base will decide that it really doesn't make that much difference who's in the White House. Volunteers didn't put in their time and effort for Bush just to get another Specter-approved "moderate" on the court.

I place the word "moderate" in quotes because that term has been twisted by the left to mean someone who endorses the radical judicial activism which has marked the courts over the last few decades. The word "moderate" means someone who is willing to read words into the Constitution that aren't in there, and to read out words that definitely are. A judge who applies the words of the Constitution as they are actually written (e.g., Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia) is considered by the mainstream media to be some kind of dinosaur, or at least a neanderthal, and definitely a scary person to be kept off the bench at all costs. This is how completely out-of-whack things have gotten.

Gay marriage and abortion on demand may or may not be good ideas, but the Constitution has nothing to say about either.

On the other hand, we can argue whether government power to restrict the freedom of the political press and political speech is or is not a good idea, but it is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

By the Constitution's own terms, those powers of the U.S. Congress not expressly enumerated in the document are limited to those involved in regulating "interstate commerce." The Supreme Court has elected to read the term "interstate commerce" in such a manner that a person growing crops on his own land and consuming those crops himself is considered to be engaging in "interstate commerce", despite the fact that eating your own crops grown on your own land is neither interstate nor commerce! No direct effect on another state (i.e., interstate) required and no buying or selling (i.e. commerce) required. In other words, everything is "interstate commerce" according to the Supreme Court. If everything is interstate commerce, then a restriction of Congress' power to "interstate commerce" is no restriction at all. Can that be what the drafters intended? An express limitation with no practical effect? Of course it wasn't, but that is where we are today.

We live in a time when the judges have interpreted the Constitution to provide for rights which clearly aren't in there (gay marriage, abortion on demand) and to eliminate the rights which clearly are. The left-wing in this country has turned the Bill of Rights on its head, and its allies in the mainstream media ridicule and deride anyone who would set it back upright.

Give us a conservative justice, President Bush. If you don't, an awful lot of people will be staying home or working for the next Ross Perot clone on election day 2008. And that will mean you and all the rest of us will have to put up with President Hillary for four years.

Michelle Malkin gives a good run-down on all the latest buzz ...

Captain Ed has more.

Miller's Time weighs in here.


Post a Comment

<< Home