I Smell The Obnoxious Odor Of Mendacity From The Left: Here We Go Again

I can’t believe how people are looking at this stage in this nation’s history as nothing special. I’m as much a pessimist as many can be, but even I have hope for the new nominees coming up from the president. Yep. I’m right back on top of the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, and I’m not buying the rhetoric from the Left. Worse, I can barely believe the rhetoric coming from the conservative camp in this fight.

I will grant many this: Specter is a first-class RINO; much in the mold of McCain. The difference is his leash was tightened the moment he was moved to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The problem is that Frist has let the leash go slack. Specter, this morning—and I heard the full statement on Laura Ingraham’s show—that if the president were to nominate an originalist, the Congress would soon revert to segregation. I’m sure Byrd would appreciate that, but I can’t. And most of America that heard that comment today are still shaking their heads; only an idiot would make a statement like that.

The president even stated today that we need to "tone down the rhetoric" in respect to the nominees. OK. I’ll give him this much: He hasn’t officially named anyone yet. Gotcha. But it doesn’t change the fact that we drew the battle lines the moment Justice O’Connor opened up her mouth to announce her retirement. If the GOP won’t do it, we will. We’ll grass-roots this fight if we have to because to us this is the most important fight that this nation—domestically—is facing; that would be regaining control and sanity back on the Court.

Yes, the courts have gone nuts in recent years (in my humble opinion, since Marbury v. Madison, but I’m sure I’m out-voted on that case. From at least Griswold v. Connecticut forward, the Court has lost its mind.) Since the Griswold case, the Court has placed precedent after precedent on the stack of mattresses that one leads to the next, which leads to the next. It’s almost as though the Court knew what was coming up and laid the groundwork for decisions themselves. The problem is the princess—us—in the equation can’t sleep with the pea—judicial activism—under her mattress.

And activists are what the Left wants. They still have an agenda that is far from done. Look at what they are saying already. It’s like Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling with the step-down of O’Connor over the issue of abortion. That is the only case that is continually cited by those on the Left. Will Roe be protected. I can answer with an unwavering "yes" that Roe will be upheld. Anyone want to know why?

In the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Court had the prime opportunity to revisit Roe, and they absolutely refused to do so. Justice Scalia chastised the Court for not doing so, as he so clearly illustrated in his dissent in the case that the Court had accomplished nothing in Casey. The rules were still the same, and quite convoluted on the issue of Roe. Granted, the Court was not fully redressing Roe, but the case was on abortion, and could have had the opportunity of a lifetime: Correcting a mistake made by the Court from years’ past. They opted to shirk their responsibility, and skirt the issue.

But the Left loves activists like those on the Court right now. O’Connor was seen as a swing vote. Souter was a stealth nominee that conservatives were ill-prepared to deal with once he was on the Court. Kennedy was another stealth guy. All three showed their true colors once on the bench. We knew what we were getting with Ginsburg, with Breyer, and with Stevens. We could do little to stop the activists coming up, and let their admission to the Court pass with little fight. However, this is a turning point in the history of the Court. The president has the ability to send a clear message to the people of America by appointing jurists that don’t embrace the activist mentality.

Those type of jurists hit the Court and are so swayed by the accolades heaped on them by the media, and the praise from their colleagues that at times their minds leave them. Justice O’Connor was a "good justice?" Please. This woman couldn’t handle a simple Constitutional argument, let alone one that is complex. Many of her decisions—including the one in Casey, where she served as a swing voter—are inept, to say the least. Abortion is a political issue, first and foremost, and is best left to the States; whether it be through citizen voice at the ballot box, or through the proper legislative procedures.

Political issues have no merit on the nominees. Nor does it have merit within the Court. Unless it is directly addressed in the Constitution, it has no place before the Court. Yes, many cases have landed before the Court that address direct instances enumerated in the Constitution, and their track record is poor.

In McConnell v. FEC, they ruled that our political speech—what the Framer’s intended as absolutely inherent in the First Amendment—could be curtailed.

In Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, they ruled that the ownership of private property was not an absolute right—as the citizens of New London, CT have now lost their homes in favor of tax revenues to State coffers.


In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, they ruled that those captured in combat have legal rights, under our Constitution, and therefore have access to our legal system. This is an unprecedented move by the Courts, as no other POW has ever been granted such rights.

In Stenberg v. Carhart, they ruled that a State statute outlawing partial-birth abortion was unconstitutional.

In Lawrence v. Texas and Bowers v. Hardwick, they ruled that homosexual sodomy was a protected right under the Griswold decision, which declared a right to privacy; a right that is enumerated nowhere in the Constitution—implied or otherwise.

For the people that think the Court is doing fine. So be it. Shut up, sit on the sidelines, and let the adults fight this fight. I’m one of those that think a change is needed if we’re to even come close in saving what is left of this nation. That goes for those on the Left, too. That’s for all the Ted Kennedys, the Bob Byrds, the Barbara Boxers, the Nancy Peolsis, the Harry Reids, etc. You don’t have the power. You haven’t had it in House for eleven years. You haven’t had the White House for five years. And you haven’t had control of the Senate for three years. You don’t have the power.

You can keep fighting all sorts of legislation, but hands off the nominees. We didn’t filibuster a single one of Clinton’s nominees. The sixty, or so, that are continually cited that were filibustered never reached the floor of the Senate. They were killed in committee, which is the right thing to do. It’s allowed. I’m so sorry that the Left can’t stop them there. If you can’t do it there, then you try it on the floor. If you can’t do it there, I’m so sorry, but they go where they’re appointed. That’s how it works. That’s the extent of "advice and consent" enumerated in the Constitution.

It is not a "summit" between the Democrats and the president, which Bush has acceded to. He appoints them. If you can stop them because you disagree with them, roll the dice, and takes your chances. Otherwise, shut up. Quit slandering them. Quit pulling up disgruntled acquaintances from 20 years ago. Base your decision on their merits and qualifications. That is something voters in many states don’t pay attention to, which is why we have the mess in the Senate right now. Maybe if more people exercised sound, educated judgment at the ballot box, asses like Kennedy and Byrd might finally retire—out of the spotlight, away from the cameras, and become as irrelevant as we know them to be.

Publius II