“It is offensive to suggest that a potential justice of the Supreme Court must pass some presumed test of judicial philosophy. It is even more offensive to suggest that a potential justice must pass the litmus test of any single-issue interest group. The disturbing tactics of division and distortion and discrimination practiced by the extremists of the new right have no place in these hearings and no place in the nation’s democracy.”
“Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement gives President Bush, elected by a divided nation that has become even more divided, a unique opportunity to unite us by choosing for the Supreme Court someone who can win support from a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate and whom the vast majority of Americans will be proud of.”
The enormous difference in the dates shown above—which should be enough to secure support for Congressional term limits—aside, where, dear Senator Kennedy, Democrats, and other members of the radical left, in the Constitution does it say the President of the United States must consult with the Senate on his choices for federal bench appointments? Rather than choosing someone “who can win support from a broad bipartisan majority,” the President should be choosing as a nominee a justice who will abide by the Constitution (aka, an “originalist”), versus one who will make up rights and law based on nothing found within the Constitution (aka, an “activist”).
Something tells me that if enough justices on the Supreme Court fit the former model, rather than the latter, the American people would be quite proud of them, Senator, because the Court wouldn’t be meddling in our lives and we would rarely hear from them.
Here’s hoping the President nominates another Scalia or Thomas. I want to see Kennedy’s face turn all red. Oh wait, too late.
[Thanks to today’s Best of the Web.]posted on July 5, 2005 7:51 PM