Like The President Is Going To Listen To Reid?

Harry Reid stuck his foot down his throat in recent news. Not a surprise, right? Wrong. Read on.

(Hat-Tip: Captain’s Quarters)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004913.php

WASHINGTON - Contending that President Bush's far-right allies are pushing him to appoint an extreme conservative to the Supreme Court, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid pointed to liberal icon Earl Warren as a model.

In his party's weekly radio address, Reid, D-Nev., noted that Saturday marked the anniversary of the 1974 death of Warren, a Republican whose court established a liberal tradition with its 1954 school desegregation ruling and other decisions. Reid said Warren had been able to forge a consensus on the court that would become the national consensus.

"Mr. President, that's the kind of justice we hope you'll nominate," Reid said in Saturday's broadcast. "Someone who will bring us together. A mainstream justice who won't use their judicial robe as a cloak to impose their political ideology on the country."

What a dipshit.

Reid fails to recognize, openly, the leanings of Justice Warren. He was a judicial activist of the first order. Hell, the man practically founded the idea. So Reid wants an activist? I have news for him, it will not happen with Bush. They might be able to force his hand , and nominate Gonzales, but I doubt it’ll occur. I have faith the president will nominate originalists to the bench. He campaigned on them, hasn’t dissuaded public opinion on his idea of what an originalist is, and has nominated good originalists to the bench already. (To the Left’s dismay, yes, Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor are on the federal bench. And they will interpret the Constitution properly there.)

Reid said he hopes Bush and the Senate will work together to nominate and confirm a justice who can build on national consensus on important issues, hold a deep respect for the Constitution, and make rulings not along narrow partisan ideology, but with "an open mind and a big heart."

Yep. A big heart that recognizes "rights" not enumerated in the Constitution. (Can anyone say "privacy," "sodomy," or "abortion?") Judges, Sen. Reid, aren’t supposed to render decisions based on any "national consensus." This isn’t a branch to be influenced through "popular" thoughts. It’s about what the law says. If the law says "no", then it is illegal. If appealed and accepted by the High Court and its discovered that the grievance isn’t addressed in the Constitution, then it goes back to where it last originated, and their decision stands.

"But radical-right activists are hungry for something else," he added. "President Bush's far-right allies are spending millions of dollars to pressure him to pick not just a conservative, but an extreme conservative, someone out of the mainstream, someone who will impose their narrow partisan agenda from the perch of the highest court in the land instead of faithfully interpreting the law."

"America deserves better," he said.

Yes, Senator, America DOES deserve better. Are you ready to step down, yet? No? Then neither am I—from my soapbox, that is.

Thank you for pointing out that to you an "extreme conservative" is someone who adheres to the rule of, and precedents set down, in the law. That would be J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Emilio Graza, and Edith Jones; amongst numerous others. Those are people who will interpret the law as it written, not as you and your ilk, and judicial activists alike, choose to view it.

I choose to view this perfect document as it was written, as it has remained written to this day, and take it for what it states. It does, after all, mean what it says. We have recognized that for years. But lately—over the last fifty, or so, years—people have tried to turn this nation away from what it says. I’m not a "strict constructionist", as many would believe me to be. A "strict constructionist" believes all words within the founding document should be interpreted narrowly. For further inference, one should actually claim me as a textualist more, and an originalist less.

I do believe in what the Constitution says, and what it means, but to grasp the meaning of what something says, at times, you need to refer to the texts of the past. Language is as ever-evolving as the human species. To narrowly interpret things is a disservice to the Founding Fathers and Framers. (Come on, guys...They never expected the F-Bomb to be so prevalent in society. LOL.) But when it comes to certain things, it’s nice to know what the Framers were drawing on.

If one is to truly develop an understanding of the Constitution, one must understand this simple fact: The argument the Left presents in terms of "They didn’t address this issue" or "that issue," is irrelevant. They provided the proper checks and balances within the document for a moral and just people. Adams cited that during his presidency; that the Constitution could only succeed under the auspice of a moral people.

It—the Constitution—has failed, in a way. But I can’t hold it responsible for the irresponsibility of man, which iot governed. We are trying to come up with quick fixes to problems wrought by our own inequity and complacency. It was our job—the peoples’ job—to keep the government in check, ultimately. The Constitution failed in its inability to deal with the immorality of "what if?", but we failed it even more.

So, it’s time we step up, take notice, and re-take the reins of this runaway judiciary. And in doing so that means getting involved. E-mails. Phone calls. Even "snail mail" works. But let them know. Let your representatives know what your thoughts are. Only through us can they make an EDUCATED move or decision. We can’t trust them to their own devices. We’ve trusted them far too long, and look at the hell we have.

Publius II