Robert Meyer
The roll of the judiciary
By Robert Meyer
It is obvious that the final frontier for liberals — the last best hope to forward their agenda, is in the judiciary. When we look at how this country has become so inundated with the mind set and the trappings of liberalism, it is painfully obvious that little of this change has happened legislatively, but through the pounding of the gavel in both our superior and lower court system.
This explains why the Democratic party has ardently filibustered some of the president's judicial appointments. While Republicans in the Senate appear to have enough votes to change the parliamentary procedures that would require a cloture vote for approval of judicial nominations, they have until now utterly lacked the will to follow through. Well, there is no time like the present!
This sort of obstruction by liberals is unprecedented. All one has to do to demonstrate this historically is to look at the virtually unanimous margins by which justices on opposite sides of the political spectrum, such as Scalia or Ginsberg, were approved of by Senate confirmation votes. And now we see Democratic leaders whining like children who didn't get their coveted Christmas gift, during a recent rally sponsored by a far left advocacy group.
The sad fact is that all of these judicial nominees currently filibustered would have won clear majority votes were they either up or down tallies. Imagine a football game where one team is heavily favored over another. The favored team wins by 17 points, but the losers protest that the predicted point spread was at 20, so they didn't actually lose the contest.
The Constitution requires a super majority in only seven instances, and confirming presidential appointments isn't one of them. Why not simply require 60 votes to approve all legislation. That way it would be more difficult for the legislature to raise taxes? We could have a perpetual gridlock of everything. How would that put us in worst shape than we would be in if ranking Democrat leader Harry Reid makes good on his threat to shut down the Senate, retaliating if the rules are changed? Isn't it through democratic processes that the rules are changed in the first place? For that matter, why not require 67 votes — or how about 75 to confirm a judge? Let's empower the obstructionists.
What is so alarming to me is a lack of outrage on the part of the American people over this situation, as well as the breakdown of the separation of powers via judicial legislation. All some people care about is whether or not the final outcome coincides with their own ideology.
George Washington advised against this short-sightedness in his famous Farewell Address.
"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism...If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
It seems Washington saw the potential for judicial usurpations even before the advent of judicial review. Why some people think that the courts should ultimately make remedial laws, can be traced back to inadequate civics and historical learning (and teaching for that matter) while they were in school. This is no doubt part the historical revisionism movement currently thriving in public education. How sad. The liberals say more and more money is the solution to a better education. I think teaching the right things would go far in reversing the "dumbing down of America."
It is interesting that justices such as Scalia are thought dangerous, even though they are of the ideology that wants to limit the role of the courts to its constitutional boundaries. Try to imagine how limiting your own power to arbitrate according to personal whim can be worrisome. Then a justice like Kennedy can discern what is "cruel and unusual" on the basis of international laws. Seems a bit like hiring the milkman to do your plumbing because you like his uniform.
It seems that the contemporary task of the judiciary has become limiting the right to life and liberty in the eyes of many, while ensuring the license to pursue happiness for a few. Beware of the black-robed fantom driving a steamroller.
© Robert Meyer
It is obvious that the final frontier for liberals — the last best hope to forward their agenda, is in the judiciary. When we look at how this country has become so inundated with the mind set and the trappings of liberalism, it is painfully obvious that little of this change has happened legislatively, but through the pounding of the gavel in both our superior and lower court system.
This explains why the Democratic party has ardently filibustered some of the president's judicial appointments. While Republicans in the Senate appear to have enough votes to change the parliamentary procedures that would require a cloture vote for approval of judicial nominations, they have until now utterly lacked the will to follow through. Well, there is no time like the present!
This sort of obstruction by liberals is unprecedented. All one has to do to demonstrate this historically is to look at the virtually unanimous margins by which justices on opposite sides of the political spectrum, such as Scalia or Ginsberg, were approved of by Senate confirmation votes. And now we see Democratic leaders whining like children who didn't get their coveted Christmas gift, during a recent rally sponsored by a far left advocacy group.
The sad fact is that all of these judicial nominees currently filibustered would have won clear majority votes were they either up or down tallies. Imagine a football game where one team is heavily favored over another. The favored team wins by 17 points, but the losers protest that the predicted point spread was at 20, so they didn't actually lose the contest.
The Constitution requires a super majority in only seven instances, and confirming presidential appointments isn't one of them. Why not simply require 60 votes to approve all legislation. That way it would be more difficult for the legislature to raise taxes? We could have a perpetual gridlock of everything. How would that put us in worst shape than we would be in if ranking Democrat leader Harry Reid makes good on his threat to shut down the Senate, retaliating if the rules are changed? Isn't it through democratic processes that the rules are changed in the first place? For that matter, why not require 67 votes — or how about 75 to confirm a judge? Let's empower the obstructionists.
What is so alarming to me is a lack of outrage on the part of the American people over this situation, as well as the breakdown of the separation of powers via judicial legislation. All some people care about is whether or not the final outcome coincides with their own ideology.
George Washington advised against this short-sightedness in his famous Farewell Address.
"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism...If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
It seems Washington saw the potential for judicial usurpations even before the advent of judicial review. Why some people think that the courts should ultimately make remedial laws, can be traced back to inadequate civics and historical learning (and teaching for that matter) while they were in school. This is no doubt part the historical revisionism movement currently thriving in public education. How sad. The liberals say more and more money is the solution to a better education. I think teaching the right things would go far in reversing the "dumbing down of America."
It is interesting that justices such as Scalia are thought dangerous, even though they are of the ideology that wants to limit the role of the courts to its constitutional boundaries. Try to imagine how limiting your own power to arbitrate according to personal whim can be worrisome. Then a justice like Kennedy can discern what is "cruel and unusual" on the basis of international laws. Seems a bit like hiring the milkman to do your plumbing because you like his uniform.
It seems that the contemporary task of the judiciary has become limiting the right to life and liberty in the eyes of many, while ensuring the license to pursue happiness for a few. Beware of the black-robed fantom driving a steamroller.
© Robert Meyer
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.)
