The battleground of Supreme Court nominations

By Sam Bridges

It started long before Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. It even started long before John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court. Conservative concerns about the U.S. Supreme Court started many years ago.

Over the past few decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly ventured far from its Constitutional intent. The Court has become a purveyor of social change and the forced liberalization of America. Moving further from the scope and limitation intended by the country's founding fathers to interpret the Constitution and various legislation, it has instead become an instrument of secularization and reference to international law. The extreme liberal and secular movements in our country make inappropriate and frequent use of the Court when other governmental avenues — such as the U.S. Congress — are no longer at their disposal.

As a citizen, I find this trend disturbing and unacceptable. The Court now routinely accepts cases and delivers mandates related to matters best left either to the States and their legislatures or the U.S. Congress. Furthermore, their decisions typically contradict or go beyond the will and belief of the vast majority of the U.S. citizenry. Borrowing a term from the late New York Democratic Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, it appears that the Court has unfortunately become an agent of "defining down deviancy."

As a conservative, I do not want to turn the Supreme Court into some sort of politically conservative court. While I certainly want to have the damage from politically liberal directions undone, I simply want the Court to return to its Constitutional scope and roots. To accomplish this, the Court should not be politically conservative, but it must become more judicially conservative, and therefore, more Constitutionally based and motivated. As such, we must have jurists who are "originalists" and "strict constructionalists."

Many well-known and vocal Conservatives were apparently expecting and hoping that President Bush would nominate someone who would result in an easier confirmation process. However, if the President's nominee was the judicially conservative and strict Constitutional constructionalist type of jurist that is so desperately needed, then regardless of how well they are known or how extensively their background is documented, the process will necessarily be painful and difficult. We should not expect otherwise. This sort of nomination threatens the liberal and secular chokehold on our government and culture through the misuse of the Supreme Court. This seems to be just the latest example of how many Conservatives and Republicans need to stop avoiding every battle for what is right for the life, spirit, and direction of our country, preferring to do what seems to be politically expedient at the time.

As a Christian, I view the Miers' nomination somewhat differently, though it is still completely consistent with my views as a simple citizen and as a conservative. Based on his character, his faith, his long-term relationship with Miers, and his appointments to the lower courts, I trust President Bush's judgment. Even though I periodically struggle with that trust, he seems to have stayed the course related to his promises about court appointments. Furthermore, if Harriet Miers is an "originalist" (as she has described herself), a "strict constructionalist," and an evangelical Christian, I will be much more likely to trust that her judicial character will be consistent with the country's establishment by our founding fathers and the free practice of the Christian faith.

Of course, I absolutely do not want to force Christianity on the citizens of the U.S. or turn the country into some sort of theocracy. However, the voluntary personal and corporate acknowledgement of God, as the founding fathers of our nation and states did and assumed, is not establishment of a specific religion. In fact, the total exclusion of God is, in essence, the establishment of a specific, man-based religion better known as secular humanism. We should not strive for nor allow the United States to become a Christian theocracy. But likewise, we should not strive for nor allow this country to devolve into nothing more than a secular humanist state.

And finally, as a Christian, I should also do everything in my power to ensure this great country does not dishonor the Lord in its execution of government in its various forms and performances. However, I must also remember that our hope as individuals and as a country does not lie in any worldly establishment or government institution, but ultimately in the Lord God alone through His provision, grace, and mercy.

© Sam Bridges