Here we go again! If you recall the confirmation of John Roberts last Fall, it's deja vu all over again. Although I'm tempted to rant (again), I'm restraining myself, because it does nothing but add to the increasing number of gray strands in my ever-thinning mop. I can't afford to put more of it at risk so soon after the Roberts trial.
The Dems continue to demonstrate why they lost all political power in the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branches and, astoundingly, they still don't "get" it. Senator Edward Kennedy, whose irritating upper-crust Boston accent rings from my TV set in the background as I write this, continues to fail to understand the function of his own nest, the U.S. Senate, but the Executive and the Judicial branches as well. I wish one of his staff members would write a pithy essay on Government 101 for Kennedy, although it's possible that Kennedy doesn't hire staff members who possess that knowledge either.
He and his leftist brethren appear to believe that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of every aspect of American life: economics, morality, education . . . you name it--in their minds, it is that small body of nine lawyers who hold the fate of America in their hands. Therefore, according to the Left, the Court is and must be politicized, that is, it must function in terms not of the law but in terms of whatever societal whim should be placed before it. By any means, they are desperate to make the Court an institute of social engineering and legislation--something our Founders clearly never intended.
But that's why the Left are trying to claim as one of their own the retiring Justice Sandra O'Connor, whom they so lovingly describes as the "swing vote"--that is, "a Leftist vote" in cases of a 4 to 4 tie between the nasty conservatives and the enlightened liberals on the court. The insidious aspect of their frantic effort to politicize the "swing vote" is that they're trying to establish the function of the Supreme Court as a political entity-- not a judicial one--conveniently overlooking the fact that the U.S. Constitution and its founders did not intend that body to be a microcosm of the 535-member legislative houses of Congress, but a pure instrument of jurisprudential oversight, whose members exercise a non-political role. Do the Dems simply not understand that the Court was designed as an institution to address legislation passed by Congress and the states (where state jurisdiction is challenged) as to constitutionality? Or is it a dangerous attempt to reshape the Court's function.
As long as the Dems are so far out of power in Washington and across the nation, the specific, narrow view of the Court's "job description" as our Founders established it, is unacceptable to Edward Kennedy and his ilk; they prefer to slough off their own responsibilities as legislators and look to the Supreme Court for relief. They don't understand that their attempt to eschew their responsibilities and turn the third major branch of the U.S. government into an their own instrument is precisely why Americans have rejected their party several times during the past two decades. Thus, in desperation, believe that if they are able to gain control of the Court, they would be able to recoup their lost political power.
It's a shameless display of ignorance and their helplessness. And the irony is, by taking their hypocritical stance on television with the nominee, Sam Alito, they don't realize that they are merely reinforcing in middle America's mind (wherein lies the Republican power) the ignorance, duplicity, and effeteness of today's American Left. If they continue their incoherent and one-theme performance during the remaining days of torturing a brilliant legal mind of similar stature of Justice Roberts, they're only reconfirming why Americans will continue to reject the Democrats at the polls.
Add this to the daily performance of the Dem's official court jester, head of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean, and Republicans have little to worry about at the polls for the next couple of decades.
No comments:
Post a Comment