Nothing is so refreshing as a "Scalia light"

By Robert Meyer

In 2000 presidential election, many of us who are conservatives probably had certain doubts about George Bush's convictions for advancing a conservative political agenda. I still have some doubts at times even now. But the primary reason many of us, including myself, ultimately voted for Bush, was his stated positions on judicial appointments. With that said, I am as thrilled with the Bush nomination of Samuel Alito, known as "Scalito," or "Scalia light," as I was disappointed with the Harriet Miers nomination. Now I'm tempted to say, "by George, I think you've got it!" Bush finally has made good on that campaign promise regarding judicial nominees.

Alito was on the short list of judges that were Strict Constructionists or Originalists. The first positive sign that this is an excellent choice, is the ranting we hear from arch liberal Senator Ted Kennedy's microphone.

Alito's confirmation could assure at least four reliable constitutionalists on the court. It is my ardent pipe dream that more conservative presence on the Supreme Court, could coax a justice like Anthony Kennedy, out of his cocoon on the liberal branch of the court, and let him fly back to where he came from. But even if that doesn't happen, we could still be better off than all the years with O'Connor. Stevens would be the next logical departure from the court. That would open the door to a true majority of constitutionalists.

Of course, liberal news outlets are already crying foul, claiming Alito's appointment threatens diversity. A rather ironic quotation from a staff editorial column in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on October 31st, turned a few heads. It read, "In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

Can you believe that? Are they against the idea of ideological diversity and political stratification amongst African-Americans? Do they believe that all blacks by default, have an obligation to advance liberalism? We might ask what mainstream is represented by the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Perhaps ACLU attorneys? The piece was the scariest thing that I saw on Halloween night.

Again, we see liberal assumptions bleeding out from under the cosmetic of pseudo critical thought. We certainly shouldn't select justices as though they are legislators and represent certain constituencies and ethnic groups. That in itself negates and warps the role of the judiciary. We need the best and brightest legal minds to grapple with complex constitutional issues. But of course, it is liberals who think that judges make laws, or at least ought to make them.

Some simple-minded liberals also want to reduce this nomination to a question about abortion and women's rights. They point to a decision Alito made in an Appeals Court, where he sided with Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey, who wanted a requirement for women to notify their spouse before getting an abortion. This makes Alito a marked man. What a subservient request; to have to tell your husband you are dumping the developing child you both created. If the woman keeps the baby, the father is financially and ethically liable. If she terminates it, it is not his business to even know at all. The last time my wife applied for a credit card, I was required by law to be notified of her application for credit. Is a developing baby less of a joint concern? Even by the most liberal definition, how does this impair anyone's rights. It just seems like basic common sense to me.

I don't care to know any judge's personal opinions. Judicial philosophy is what matters. What liberals know, of course, is that any cogent construction of the Constitution will make abortion an issue left to the state legislatures, where it actually can be an issue decided by the people through representation. No Originalist will ever find "emanations" from the "penumbra" of the Constitution as a basis for a new right. That is frightening to them, but emancipating to anyone who believes in representative government.

Why anyone would worry about an "originalist" is difficult to fathom. By their own judicial philosophy, they reduce their primary ability to guide social engineering projects. Liberal judges are the ones far more likely to usurp power from both the people, and other branches of government.

Unless any unexpected skeletons raddle out of Alito's closet, this confirmation process will provide that this nominee will be opposed for reasons none other than that he is conservative. This will change the way the advise and consent clause has been enacted and applied. Under the current de facto standards, how would Ginsburg ever have gotten nearly a unanimous confirmation?

I predict that there will be no filibuster. The democrats would look bad to the America public opposing this highly qualified judge, but let's see what sort of "short order spin" they cook up.

© Robert Meyer