Back to Archived blog posts.
A good choice
I am pleased with President Bush's selection for the Supreme Court. Bush picked a conservative and (more importantly) a pro-life judge to replace "moderate" Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
This is what conservatives have been waiting on since Bush was elected in 2000. Many conservatives have been disappointed with some of the President's policies. The "No Child Left Behind Act" significantly increased the role of the federal government in education, which is certainly not a conservative policy. The President signed the abominable McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" law, which regulates the content of political speech.
However, we were willing to put up with that for this moment: the chance to get a pro-life Supreme Court Justice who would not put up roadblocks to legislative efforts to restrict abortion.
Abortion is, by far, the most important moral issue of our time. With 1.2 million babies dying each year in American abortion mills, the abortion holocaust overpowers every other issue. While I may not be thrilled with many of the President's policies, I have to set priorities. Abortion is at the top of that list.
Senate Democrats immediately promised to make sure John Roberts has "mainstream" views on matters likely to come before the Supreme Court. This reveals two things about them. First, what the Democrats are really saying is that the President's nominee should agree with them on key issues. After all, in their minds, they are the mainstream.
Second, it exposes the Democrats' desire to get around the legislative process. In a perfect world, it should not matter where on the ideological perspective a judge falls. The only thing that should matter is whether or not that justice will faithfully apply the law rather than advance own personal views. Of course, we do not live in a perfect world, but the fact that Democrats and Leftist special interest groups are making such a big issue out of whether a nominee has "mainstream" views is very telling.
Will there be a filibuster on Roberts' nomination? If so, I hope the Republican leadership has the courage to force the Democrats to engage in a real filibuster. Keep the option of "unlimited debate" open, but nothing else would be done while the filibuster is going on. Force those who are filibustering to shut down the Senate and let the chips fall where they may. The GOP should not allow the Democrats to demand a 60-vote supermajority for confirmation.
If Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is planning on running for President in 2008, he will need to keep the Democratic Party's left wing in mind as he considers this historic vote. However, give the margin of victory Hoosiers gave Bush in 2000 and 2004, Bayh will have to be mindful of his own constituents as well. Marvin Scott was unable to convince Hoosiers to dump their "golden boy" in 2004, but this could change the course of Bayh's political career as well as his popularity in his home state. How will he walk that line?