Bryan Fischer
Next president's judicial appointments may determine future of America
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Bryan Fischer
February 6, 2012

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"

Judicial appointments are a huge issue in the next presidential election. Three Supreme Court justices will be in their 80s during the next four years, and there is a good chance the next president will nominate replacements for all three.

In addition, President Obama has already changed the makeup of four of the 13 district courts of appeal, replacing Republican appointed judges with his own constitutionally-impaired choices. The next president likely will have enough vacancies to fill that, if Obama were to be re-elected, he could change the philosophical composition of a majority of the federal bench in his disastrously activist direction.

Here's where things get problematic in a hurry for Republicans. Mitt Romney appointed 36 judges during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, and 27 of them were liberal Democrats. Two were open and avowed homosexuals. Regardless of what he says on the stump, his track record when he actually held the power of judicial appointments is dismal. At some point, a man's record and not his rhetoric must be weighed, and in Gov. Romney's case, he has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.

Judicial nominations would likely be safe in the hands of Newt Gingrich, who has posted a 54-page position paper on curbing judicial power on his campaign website, and would without question be safe in the hands of Rick Santorum. Santorum can make a credible case that he was willing to put his entire political career at risk by endorsing Arlen Specter in exchange for Specter's guarantee that he would get conservative justices out of the judiciary committee. That's how we got Roberts and Alito.

Ron Paul would be a risky bet. His political philosophy of anything-goes libertarianism (prostitutes at Nevada's most famous brothel are actually tithing to his campaign) might indicate he would choose judges who think the Lawrence v. Texas ruling is just peachy. That ruling, overturning the Texas law against sodomy, will, as Justice Scalia observed at the time, be the end of all morals-based legislation in America if allowed to stand.

Our society today shows an utterly unnecessary and wrong-headed deference to Supreme Court rulings. The Founders did not conceive of the Supreme Court as the superior and ultimate branch of government whose rulings must be obeyed regardless of how stupid and unconstitutional they might happen to be. No, they designed the judicial system to be the weakest of the three branches. But alas, we have drifted from the Founders' moorings and now find ourselves adrift in a vast ocean of judicial unpredictability.

Our next president, through judicial appointments alone, may make it impossible for America to reclaim the vision of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and George Washington..

On the other hand, a president who makes prudential nominations may give us one last chance to reclaim our destiny and make America once again a shining city on a hill.

America must choose. Let us hope and pray she chooses wisely.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

© Bryan Fischer

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)