Conservative Supreme Court?
June 30, 2003
Is anyone else besides me getting tired of hearing the whining and the moaning from the Democrat Party about how CONSERVATIVE the U.S. Supreme Court is?
After last week’s monumental decisions in favor of the radical homosexual agenda and racial discrimination were handed down, all I can say is give me a break! Although none of the justices made an official announcement regarding stepping down from the court, maybe a few of them should have retired!
With the nine Democrat presidential candidates and the Democrat National Convention all loudly banging the drum of hatred towards President George W. Bush and his judicial nominees for lower courts each and every day, that has gotten very old, very quick.
Regardless, the Democrats seem dead set on creating a fairy tale about the so-called CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court. What conservative Supreme Court? And the recent comments by the Democrats have grown more and more cantankerous.
Here is just a snippet of what has been said lately by some Democrats:
“When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.”
-- Rep. Dick Gephardt stating what he would do if he was president in regards to any Supreme Court decisions he did not agree with
“I need you to join me in keeping the Supreme Court out of the hands of right wing ideologues.”
-- Sen. John Kerry in his statement for the MoveOn.org primary poll
“...any person who thinks it's his or her job to push an extreme political agenda rather than to interpret the law should not be a Supreme Court justice.”
-- Sen. John Kerry laying out his litmus test for Supreme Court Justices
“...A George W. Bush Supreme Court would mean major decisions could have dramatically different outcomes for the American people.”
-- DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision last week to uphold affirmative action
“...As Americans, we should all be vigilant about protecting our rights and fighting against the Bush administration's efforts to take away core American values...”
-- DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling last week that overturned a ban on gay sodomy
Oh, it must REALLY be bad if the Democrats are talking like this, right? Surely, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST be filled with at least a majority (5) of CONSERVATIVE justices right now. In a word: NOT!
The truth of the matter is that just isn’t the case at all. Let’s look at an ideological breakdown of the justices of the court and the president that nominated each of them to the highest court in the land:
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
President Richard Nixon
Justice John Paul Stevens
President Gerald Ford
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
President Ronald Reagan
Justice Antonin Scalia
President Ronald Reagan
Justice Anthony Kennedy
President Ronald Reagan
Justice David Souter
President George H. W. Bush
Justice Clarence Thomas
President George H. W. Bush
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
President Bill Clinton
Justice Stephen Breyer
President Bill Clinton
Let’s see, that’s 3 CONSERVATIVE, 3 MODERATE and 3 LIBERAL Supreme Court justices currently serving. So much for the notion of the so-called conservative Supreme Court. At first glance, that list above looks pretty balanced. But let’s take a closer look.
Seven of the nine justices were appointed by a Republican president. The two justices nominated by a Democrat president (Clinton) are both LIBERAL (should we be surprised?!). Of the seven justices nominated by a Republican president, 3 are CONSERVATIVE, 3 are MODERATE and 1 is LIBERAL.
Does anyone see the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party for demanding that President Bush nominate justices that aren’t CONSERVATIVE? Did Democrat Bill Clinton nominate any CONSERVATIVE or even MODERATE justices? Nope. But Republican Ford appointed a LIBERAL. Republican Reagan appointed two MODERATES. And Republican George H. W. Bush nominated a MODERATE. It looks like the time is long overdue for a CONSERVATIVE to be put on the Supreme Court once again.
Furthermore, pay close attention to the pattern of the last nine justices appointed to the Supreme Court: CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, MODERATE, CONSERVATIVE, MODERATE, MODERATE, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, LIBERAL. Every third nominee is a CONSERVATIVE. Going back to basic math class in grade school, the next logical choice in the pattern above is a CONSERVATIVE justice!
Even still, President Bush, unlike the Democrats, refuses to have a litmus test for the candidates he would choose to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants a candidate who will interpret the U.S. Constitution rather than legislate judicially (do I need to name names?!). Although liberals bemoan the “right wing extremists” suggested by Bush who may be considered for the court, they turn a blind eye when asked about the “left wing extremists” like the ones Clinton appointed.
But the ideological pendulum in this country has swung in the CONSERVATIVE direction and it is time for more conservative justices to be nominated and confirmed for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. If Clinton can nominate 2 LIBERAL justices, then George W. Bush can nominate CONSERVATIVE justices to balance them. I challenge any Democrat to explain to me why Bush should not be able to do this!
The three justices who are considering retirement this year or next are Stevens, O’Connor and Rehnquist. If Stevens (LIBERAL) retires and is replaced by a conservative justice, then the court would experience a minor shift in ideology. Also, if O’Connor (MODERATE) steps down and a conservative replaces her, it will also be a slight shift in ideology. However, if Rehnquist (CONSERVATIVE) steps down, then he must be replaced by a conservative in order to maintain the current balance of the court. If Bush submits any prospective justice other than a CONSERVATIVE, the court will move further to the left. HE HAS TO APPOINT A CONSERVATIVE!
Nevertheless, let’s examine the ideological breakdown of the three moderate justices on the court: O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter. O’Connor had been a conservative-leaning moderate justice before last week’s decisions. Her recent shift to the liberal side shows she cannot be relied upon to vote conservative in the future. Kennedy and Souter both will side with the liberal justices on many issues. So, really the Supreme Court can be considered a lot more liberal (6) than conservative (3).
Perhaps some people who hate the conservatives are more put off by the intellectual prowess of Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist than they are the fact that there is some ideological conservative majority. The largess presence of these three men on the Supreme Court may make it appear that there is a conservative majority. But, as I have illustrated, there clearly is not.
Let’s take a look at how the LIBERAL Supreme Court trounced on American values and principles in their latest decisions:
- They ruled that the statutes of limitations cannot be erased retroactively, which immediately dismissed 800 cases of child molestation in California.
- They struck down a Texas law that banned gay sex.
- They decided to allow racial discrimination to continue to permeate college campus admissions policies.
These decisions made by the Supreme Court last week show just how LIBERAL the court has become. The myth of the CONSERVATIVE court was shot down in a blaze of glory by these rulings that will adversely affect American culture for many years to come. Many qualified white students will be denied the right to a legal education because of the racial discrimination that was upheld by the court. And, despite what Ralph Bristol says, the opportunity for gay marriage to be sanctioned in the United States has been paved by their ruling on homosexual sodomy.
Although Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist all voted AGAINST these measures, O’Connor was the key swing vote in each of these decisions.
What conservative Supreme Court? What are the Democrats talking about when they make this false claim? If this is a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court, then I shudder to think what a LIBERAL one would do!
I think this strategy by the Democrats of trying to sway public opinion about the Supreme Court is a desperate measure at best. What American citizen is going to believe that there is some huge CONSERVATIVE majority now? What about the fact that the Democrats are remaining largely quiet about the prospect of a LIBERAL majority on the court if they can keep blocking the conservative Bush nominees from being considered. All it would take is for Bush to concede just one moderate or liberal justice to swing the ideological pendulum back to the liberals! And Bush, sadly, has shown himself to be an appeaser in the past.
These actions by Senate Democrats is just plain disgusting. They have shown no shame in their bias against Catholic judicial nominees to lower courts this year, including Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, William Pryor and Leon Holmes. The issue of legalized murder in the form of abortion is the sticking point for most of these liberal lawmakers who despise any person of faith who believes that abortion is morally wrong. When are they going to get with the rest of the country who believe that abortion should be illegal?
What is most ironic is how the Democrats say they want to keep the Supreme Court out of the hands of radical right-wing extremists and ideologues, but they don’t have a problem if the Supreme Court is full of radical LEFT-wing extremists and ideologues. Where is the consistency?
I guess the CONSERVATIVE label given to the Supreme Court came to prominence when it was responsible for deciding who the winner of the 2000 presidential election was. That is most likely when the Democrats decided to target the Supreme Court as the major rallying point for their supporters. But the decisions by the court last week debunk the idea that the Supreme Court is CONSERVATIVE. They are anything but!
Thinking out loud, do you suppose the way the decisions played out were purposeful? Did O’Connor think through the way she would vote as a master plan to help the conservative cause in the long-run by being the temporary sacrificial lamb now? Did she vote more liberal so the conservative label given to the Supreme Court would be dismissed and so George W. Bush could appoint more conservative justices for the future? If so, then her plan might just work! Of course, this is all hypothetical.
Regardless, the CONSERVATIVE montra given to the U.S. Supreme Court was laughable even before the liberal decisions handed down last week. While Clarence Thomas has shown himself to be a CONSERVATIVE in most instances, he has not been as staunch a conservative as Scalia. Thomas has been a strong supporter of civil liberties in past decisions. He wrote the majority opinion for a decision a few years back that struck down a law requiring adult-oriented cable programming to scramble signals or limit broadcasts to late-night hours (would you call that a typical decision of a right-wing religious nut? Me neither!).
The point is, when you hear the Democrats howl in agony about the alleged danger of allowing conservative nominees to be put on the Supreme Court because it would transform the court into a haven for conservatism, don’t believe it for a second. They know that the same danger (although they wouldn’t call it that!) exists that the Supreme Court will turn more liberal and we’ll have more decisions like the ones we witnessed last week.
And that is what the Democrats are putting their hopes in as an issue in the 2004 elections. But, if they’re not careful, they may have a repeat of the 2002 Republican sweep if they continue to obstruct what most Americans want to happen in this country. If that happens, then their worst fears will be realized as Bush appoints up to 3-4 new Supreme Court justices in his second term, they will be approved by the new 60-member supermajority in the U.S. Senate and conservative legislation will be passed unhindered in the House and Senate. Let the conservative utopia arrive in 2004!