Rightank

President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court is an interesting move. In one fell swoop, he spawned a hellish response to an accomplished lawyer who has argued an unbelievable 39 times! before the U.S. Supreme Court. According to W.:

[Judge Roberts] has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen. He will strictly apply the Constitution in laws, not legislate from the bench.

But will Roberts follow his presidential pronouncement? That is the million-dollar question. Roberts has a limited paper trail and has argued on behalf of both liberal and conservative clients. Is it true that Roberts is a constitutionalist and will interpret the laws according to the statutory text and not insert his personal policy preferences as law? Is Roberts a Scalia/Thomas jurist or will he transmogrify into a Souter or another O’Connor?

Bush’s selection of Roberts is encouraging in that he choose who he deemed most qualified without regard to race, ethnicity, or gender. His selection of a white male has infuriated some on the left, including Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat from Colorado. Salazar authored a tasteless letter to President Bush in which he expressed disappointment that Bush choose a man instead of a woman. Patronizing Bush’s relationship with his daughters, Salazar concluded his pitiful tripe:

You and I both have two daughters. The profound message we should be giving to them is that their gender creates no limitations for them to live up to their God-given potential. Yet, I fear that with the loss of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor from the United States Supreme Court, we are sending the opposite message.

Salazar’s spittle is beyond the pale. The Constitution does not require a certain number of women, men, or ethnicities dressed in black robes in order to properly hear and decide a case. Salazar’s inference that Bush is telling women there are limitations to their God-given potential is sexist and ignorant. Maybe the esteemed Senator Salazar should resign his office and give it to a woman so he can feel better about himself. That’s the real reason for his comments. Salazar wants the admiration of the feminst groups who fill the ranks of the Democratic party and to feel good that he is continuing the “battle for equality.”

I do have my reservations on the Roberts pick. What are his views on the importance of traditional marriage? Does he believe the First Amendment commands a separation of church and state? I agree with Ann Coulter: selecting a Supreme Court nominee should not be a game of Russian roulette. Bush should have picked an obvious and fiery conservative, one who is unabashedly proud of his conservatism and verifably reliable.

Unfortunately, at this point the Roberts nomination leaves more questions than answers. It is early. Hopefully, the conservatives on the judiciary committee will push Roberts to divulge more of his judicial philosophy–and that philosophy will not make conservatives want to throw up.

**Update #1**

Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s outcry on Judge Roberts’s nomination makes me happy. If Roberts believes in recognizing our Nation’s religous heritage as AU claim, then Roberts will be a welcome addition to Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Kennedy–Justices who properly understand what the religion clauses mean.

If a conservative desires to irrate a liberal, one sure-fire way is to label him or her unpatriotic. Such a crass intonation creates a tinge of instant anger. Liberals (especially anti-war liberals) hate when anyone dares question their patriotism.

Yet, at times what spills out of the liberal mouth is full of distaste for our Nation’s heritage. Mark Graber, from the blog Balkanization, wrote the following:

The Fourth of July may be a difficult holiday for those with pacifist tendencies. Not the least of the bad practices associated with independence day is the American tendency to define oppression downwards. Might Americans have been better off forming an independent nation in 1776. Of course. But whether the level of injustice justified shooting a lot of people strikes me as dubious, at best. And worse, when we teach our children that conditions in 1776 were so oppressive as to justify violence, they are inclined to think of oppression indiscriminately.

The Fourth of July may be a “difficult” holiday for peace-lovers? Give me a break. Hey Mark, do you think that the Brits were going to hand us our country on a silver platter? I don’t believe George Washington and the others wanted to fight for their freedoms, but they did–valiantly. They were courageous instead of weak (like the French). Independence Day is only difficult for the feckless and those who despise our Nation’s history and forbears.

What are the other bad practices of Independence Day? Political incorrectness? Killing the enemy? Defending one’s family from harm?

Gradner’s tasteless quip implies that any type of violent aggression undertaken by any nation-state is not justifiable. In his view, because our nation and nationalism was born of a bloody Revolutionary War, the independence declared and won by the United States is not worth celebrating.

Patriotism is loyalty and love for one’s country. The United States is a Nation bred of hard work, war, determination, and allegiance to God. The Fourth of July celebrates these ideals and the freedoms we enjoy because of our progenitors. To shame their memory by whining about their heroic actions reeks of disloyalty and aversion. Such an attitude and feeling, in my view, is simply not patriotic.

Justice O’Connor’s retirement (and possibly Rehnquist’s and Steven’s as well!) present a historic opportunity to halt the social and internationalist judicial activism that froths from the court’s current opinion-making.

My beef with Justice O’Connor judical contributions is three-fold: the unconstitutional prolongment of affirmative action policies on the college admissions process; the development of the endorsement test in Establishment Clause cases; the radicalization of social policy, particularly homosexual “rights.” Two of these judicial qualities are recent incarnations, while one (the endorsement test) was O’Connor’s position over the last two decades.

In Grutter v. Bolinger (2003), Justice O’Connor’s majority opinion upheld the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy even though that policy sustantially overvalued an applicant’s race (but only African-American, Latino, and Native-Americans–screw the Asians and the Caucasians). In that opinion, Justice O’Connor said the following:

We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.

In other words, an unconstitutional admissions policy is constitutional for 25 more years because Justice O’Connor gazed into the future and said so–not because the Constitution permitted or warranted the arbitrary extension.

In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Justice O’Connor introduced her endorsement test to “clarify” the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. However, all Justice O’Connor did was further muddy the legal waters of permitted religiousity in America. In her view, the government violates the Establishment Clause when to a reasonable or objective observer “the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.” Also, the purpose of the governmental practice must not “endorse or disapprove of religion.” This endorsement test, based upon her amalgamation of the Court’s Establishment jurisprudence and not on the Founder’s intent of the Establishment Clause’s purpose, is what held together the majority of five justices in the recent case of McCreary County v. ACLU where Justice O’Connor concurred that a courtroom display of the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional:

Given the history of this particular display of the Ten Commandments, the Court correctly finds an Establishment Clause violation. The purpose behind the counties’ display is relevant because it conveys an unmistakable message of endorsement to the reasonable observer. See Justice O’Connor’s concurrence, page 3 (citations omitted and emphasis mine).

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Justice O’Connor joined five other justices in finding a Texas statute criminalizing sodomy unconstitutional. In that opinion, she coughed out the following in her concurrence:

Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law. Texas’ invocation of moral disapproval as a legitimate state interest proves nothing more than Texas’ desire to criminalize homosexual sodomy. But the Equal Protection Clause prevents a State from creating a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake. And because Texas so rarely enforces its sodomy law as applied to private, consensual acts, the law serves more as a statement of dislike and disapproval against homosexuals than as a tool to stop criminal behavior. The Texas sodomy law raise[s] the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. (quotations and citations omitted)(emphasis mine).

Justice O’Connor’s personal preference–that States’ cannot morally disapprove of any group’s behavior–is absurd. Her usurpation of the State’s policy interest to grant gay and lesbians reprieve from a criminal law is judical activism at its finest (apart from the fact that the Equal Protection Clause was ratified to rectify racist State practices–not protect any disadvantaged group with whom Justice O’Connor or any judge sympathizes).

These three examples of Justice O’Connor inserting her personal policy preferences in lieu of the constitutional text or deference to state sovereignity are reasons why conservatives should rejoice (as I do) that Justice O’Connor is leaving the Court. President Bush has promised to appoint a strict constructionist (i.e., a judge who will interpret the Constitution and other law according to its orginal intent and meaning) in her place. I believe Bush will keep his promise and appoint a lawyer of a Scalia/Thomas mold. If so, an originalist interpretation of the Establishment Clause is likely to take hold, admission practices that disguise racial quotas with the mantra of diversity less likely to receive the Court’s judicial blessing, and it is less likely that same-sex marriage will be thrust upon our Nation by the Court.

Today, we celebrate America’s independence from Britain and relish in the history of our Nation. It is wonderful to live in a free land, “the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.”

My debt of gratitude extends from the sacrifice and heroism of George Washington in leading the liberation of the Thirteen Colonies to the sweat and blood of the American solider combating terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorist thugs fight to squelch what we and other free nations have: freedom.

Thank God for America. Thank God for those who founded the United States of America. Thank God for those who have fought for our liberties–I salute you all.

Howard Dean said the most absurd thing I’ve heard in a long time: Republicans have never made an honest living.

At first it’s shocking, but then one needs to appreciate the wisdom and knowledge Howard desires to impart on us, the conservative little people–a Deanism, if you will. Honest living: when an individual goes to work and gives the government 85% of his wage in order that the slovenly slobs of America can sit at home on the couches, munch some Cheetos, and watch television.

Yeah, I guess I never have made an honest living. I hope I never do.

Memorial Day is one of my favorite holidays, increasingly so as I’ve grown older. We are at war right now, albeit a different war that those fought by our fathers and our fathers’ fathers.

I’m grateful and thankful for this Land of Liberty my family and I enjoy–thanks to the sweat, tears, and blood of those who have worn the Stars and Stripes proudly on their shirt-sleeve and died for our Nation.

God bless them this day–we are a grateful “One Nation, Under God.”

Seven cowardly Republicans joined seven weak-hearted Democrats in opposing Senator Frist and 48 other Republicans (with possibily a few constitutionally-closeted Democrats) selfcongratulatorily signing a Memorandum of Understanding (”MOU”) preserving the judicial filibuster.

Interestingly, the 14 Senators who signed the MOU explicitly favor the Senate Rules over the U.S. Constitution:

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

Notice that the 14 Senators did not say consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Authoritatively, it does not matter what the 14 Senators think the U.S. Constitution says what matters is what the Constitution does say. The Constitution does not require 60 votes (a supermajority) to confirm a judical appointment–only 51 are required. The following is a “constitutional” perspective (i.e., radicial and extra-constitutional) on the judicial confirmation process by one of the signatories Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat from Connecticut):

We are in much better shape as a country if we can look forward with much more of a sense of confidence and with a sense of pride that we have fulfilled the values and the purpose that the Founders of this country put in the judiciary if we require 60 votes. That is what is on the line. The nuclear option would blow that up and say it would require 51.

. . .

. . . Over the years, and I must say my attitude has changed on this as I have watched the Senate become more partisan and polarized, it seems to me, and now I am speaking more broadly than the judicial nominations which will be the focus of the nuclear option if the button is pushed, that in a Senate that is increasingly partisan and polarized–and therefore, unproductive–that the institutional requirement for 60 votes is one of the last best hopes of bipartisanship in moderation because to not only confirm a judicial nominee but to pass legislation, if you have the right to demand 60 votes, and the President proposes legislation, individual Members of the Senate do so, you have to go beyond the Members of your own party.

Is this the voice of the Constitutional text? Is a 60 vote requirement found in the Constitution? Hardly. Senator Lieberman’s historical stretch (one that he admits is a change in “attitude”) usurps his right as Senator to modify the Constitution (the procedure to amend the Constitution is found in Article V not the stark interpolations buzzing inside your head, Senator). Moreover, this perspective is extremely dangerous given that a 60 vote requirement could one day turn into a 65 vote requirement if another Senator expressed similar concerns of “bipartisanship.”

The Constitution is a written monument carved in black ink that if properly read and adhered to difuses the present Constutitional Crisis regarding the filibustering of presidentially-nominated judicial nominees. However, a cabal of 14 carries with them a different constitution–a MOU–in their pocket. Time will then what kind of poltical price will be paid by these extra-constitutionalist Senators.

I’m sure we all remember John Kerry’s disenchanting drone during the 2004 Presidential Election “If I were President I would make sure that every single American had adequate health care and a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts each week.” Aren’t presidential election memories grand? Senatory Kerry was at his hopeful 2004 presidential candidate best (and hopeful 2008 presidential candidate best) yesterday on the Senate floor.

Senator Kerry droned the following as he was complaining about the Republican’s threat to constitutionally break the Democrats judicial filibuster of President Bush’s judicial nominees:

There is nothing in our Constitution or our history to suggest that the nominee of any President is so special as to be excused from the scrutiny of the minority or granted immunity from the tools of democracy that protect that minority.

I didn’t win, but I can guarantee this: Had I been President, I would not have contemplated supporting or sending a request to change what I have viewed as something of value in the entire time I have been here in the Senate. Never would have occurred to me. It would have occurred to me to send people up here who could win the support of people on both sides. It would have occurred to me to bring the members of the Judiciary Committee together and sit them down and work together to come to a common understanding of what sort of standard we ought to apply and let the American people share that standard.

This is great stuff, Senator. Not only do you admit you LOST, but you have given us Americans another sore loser jeremiad that pangs our hearts with regret that you LOST. Well, forget the regret part. Kerry is still suffering from Goreophrenia: a delusional mental disorder that prompts the Presidential Election loser to fantasize and pretend that he or she actually is President of the United States. I wonder what else John Kerry would have done if he were President . . .?

If I were President, I wouldn’t have told Newsweek to retract their story about U.S. soldiers flushing the Muslim Bible down the toilet, I would have got Newsweek on the phone and we would have discussed the issue. After agreeing that it was an unfortunate mistake, I would have held a press conference praising the Muslim Holy Book and then canceling my subscription (which Teresa pays for) to Newsweek. Did I mention I read Newsweek while serving in Vietnam?

Yeah, something like that.

In an absolutely unbelieveable and racist statement, Mexican President Vicente Fox praised the Mexican illegals work ethic and value to America:

There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States.

Geez Vicente, did you have a little too much to drink before your great oratory? At best, Fox implies that blacks have moved upward in the economic and social hierarchy in America that low-rung jobs do not placate their professional career desires and choices. At worst, Fox’s statement implies that blacks are the bottom of the American society and are too lazy to perform the jobs that illegals are filling in America.

Mark Kirkorian retorts: “Fox’s statement . . . [is really] outrageous–imagine our president telling visiting Mexican businessmen that they need Guatemalan illegals to do the work that even Mexico’s Indians won’t do. That’s putting aside the fact that Mexico tends to treat its Indians like it’s Mississippi in 1890.”

Absolutely unbelievable. Fox will eat his words.

In a recent article in Slate, Fred Kaplan offers up weak and impoverished arguments against the Senate’s approval of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador. Here are Kaplan’s arguments and my comments:

Kaplan et al. are feverishly mad at Bolton’s nomination because he possesses a strong, no-nonsense character. Bolton is a nationalist and that bodes well for the United States. Hopefully, the Bolton vote in the Senate will not become another prize of the Democrats filibuster trophy collection.