What will President Obama use for a litmus test in picking a new Supreme Court Justice? Will he ask about Consitutional considerations for his health care bill, or will he concentrate on the Supreme Court’s recent decision on campaign finance, or will he simply look to further support for his Socialist agenda?
The internet is abuzz with suggestions and speculations from both the left and the right. While the majority of citizens prefer a strict Constitutionalist, the fringe elements, on both the left and the right, care less about the rule of law and more about support for their radical beliefs.
Dick Morris suggests ‘when Republicans contemplate their response to President Obama’s coming nomination to the Supreme Court, we should go beyond the traditional scrutiny over social issues and demand that any nominee elaborate his or her views about the constitutionality of the recent legislation passed by this Administration. The hearings on his nominee will be an ideal opportunity to convince the public of the un-constitutionality of his power grabs’.
President Obama made it publicly known, during his State of the Union Address, that he is in total disagreement with The Supreme Court’s decision on the Citizen’s United campaign finance ruling. A recent article in The Hill suggests this may be the focus of The President’s litmus test.
While several other issues may influence The President’s thought process when interviewing candidates for nomination, I would guess he will be looking for someone more like himself. A Basic, a non-Constitutional, I think I know better than you, judicial activist who will concentrate more on the redistribution of wealth, and support of big government issues, than enforcing the rule of law.
From the outside looking in the job, of Supreme Court Justice, is greatly simplified provided they act within the confines of The Constitution. The primary role of the Supreme Court is to protect The Constitution and prevent others from violating it. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be non-political keepers of the basic tenants of our Country’s Constitutional Liberties. Sadly, many in the legal profession, including high-ranking public officials, just do not see it that way.
Modern courts have little to do with justice, truth, facts or the rule of law. Modern courts have simply become a life support system for the legal profession. Public safety, juris prudence and the right to a fair trial have been replaced by the attorney’s need to ‘get paid’. In every major city across the country attorneys work with judges, law enforcement and public officials to ‘maintain a crime rate’ of roughly 5%.
Have you ever noticed that whenever there is an article published suggesting a ‘drop in crime rates’, that within days there will be an article published claiming ‘the prisons are over crowded’ and we need to release prisoners. The two are related, most definitely related.
Attorneys need a 5% crime rate in order to keep ‘getting paid’. Politicians need crime in order to incite public anger, obtain funding and gather public support for tax increases, elections, etc… Judges need crime in order to maintain their budgets, power and influence. This is typical of courts Today. They are not focused on crime reduction or public safety. Focusing on those two items are not ‘in the best interest’ of the legal profession.
I note this simply to indicate that this is the type of pool, that most likely spawned the attorney, that later became a judge, that The President will make his selection from. A virtual cornucopia of type A personalities that care little about justice for the people and more about justice for the legal profession. As I have often said “when we elect millionaire attorneys into public office, they write laws to the benefit of attorneys, not to the benefit of the people’. We cannot allow this attitude to be reflected in our Supreme Court Justices.
At this juncture in our Democrat created American identity crisis, we can ill afford a Supreme Court Justice whose thought process does not revolve around the basic principles of strict Constitutionalism. Nor do we a justice modeled after an attorney Commander In Chief that responds to a Congressional Inquiry with “that depends on what your definition of is is”.
While I cannot imagine too many judges to the left of Judge Stevens, they are out there practicing their interpretation of law everyday. The GOP must stand firm, (all 41 including the usual sellouts Graham, Snowe, Collins) deadlock the court if necessary and only agree to a fair and impartial justice who believes in the rule of law and support The Constitution.
Acceptance of anything less and we would probably have been better off with Sinbad’s Supreme Court of Comedy.