Now that Roberts is CJ of the SCOTUS, attention has turned to what will surely be a real fight - over who will replace Sandra Day O'Connor. O'Connor is seen by many as having been a "swing vote" on the Court, a Justice who maintained the "balance" of the Court. (Though this is a false notion: she voted as often with the minority of conservatives - as in KELO - as she did jhoin forces with the liberals on the Court.) But the very notions of "balance" and "swing vote" annoy the heck out of me.
Dr. Sanity attacks this notion of "balance" on the Supreme Court from one angle:
Democrat Entitlement
Nowhere is the Democrat's sense of entitlement more obvious than in the delusion, adopted because they are the minority party, that President Bush should appoint someone to the Supreme Court to keep it "ideologically balanced". They seem to believe that since Sandra Day O'Connor has been a swing voter on the court, that it is their right to demand someone similar from the President's next appointment.When did the Supreme Court of the United States become yet another entitlement program for the Democrats? Where is it written that the Supreme Court must be "ideologically balanced"? Who has ever claimed that the minority party has any rights (except the usual "advise and consent role).
She ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. But, I attack the notion of "balance on the Court" on a different basis: it's a PHONY concept which masks an otherwise BLATANT ideological bias to the Left.
(1) Why is it called "BALANCE" when the SCOTUS doesn't reflect the political feelings of most of Americans!? Most SCOTUS appointments in the last 35 years were made by conservative presidents, who were expecting that the persons they put on the court would be conservatives - only it didn't work out that way: Stevens; Kennedy; Souter and O'Connor - all appointed by GOP presidents - drifted AWAY from the things which led them to get the appointment and drifted toward the Left. This so-called "balance" was the result of Justices NOT ruling as the president or the Senate or electorate had a right to expect they would rule!
And (2), why is a 5-4 ruling which ALLOWS ABORTION any more balanced than a 5-4 ruling that says there is no federal right to an abortion!?
This seems to me to be MERELY A BIAS - and one you hear ALL DAY LONG in the MSM: they say there is "balance" in the SCOTUS as if after the next Justice is confirmed and IF this led to new 5-4 rulings which OVERTURNED older 5-4 rulings that this would be UNBALANCED!?
Sheesh.
This is as hypocritical as when Lefties argue - ON THE ONE HAND - FOR A LIVING CONSTITUTION, one that can be modified by looking at what foreign courts decide (!), and yet simultaneously argue - ON THE OTHER HAND - that THEIR FAVORITE RULINGS ARE SOMEHOW ETCHED IN STONE - AS IN ROE VS. WADE - which can never EVER be overturned!
Well I say: They can't have it both ways, (well, not an be rational - not their strong suit, ever!). They should just admit that they don't want the stuff they LIKE overturned,and won't vote for nominees who they think WILL overturn the stuff they like. That would be HONEST.
And they should just admit that the term "maintain balance on the Court" means letting them WIN 5-4 rulings (and over-rulings) - and guaranteeing that these rulings (and over-rulings) are written stone; whereas 5-4 rulings which are conservative or which overturn things the Left likes is bad and wrong and UNNACCEPTABLE to the point of demanding a FILIBUSTER.
Which is what I expect from the Lefties in the US Senate. And that the GOP will break them - by adjusting the rules - the Constitutional/"Nuclear" Option - and Bush will get his nominee confirmed and that the MSM will declare this is a defeat.
YEAH: another defeat for Bush - joining a long list of his other defeats: the Iraqi election and the Iraqi constitution and the Afghani election and constitution; and getting Syria out of Lebanon, and Putin out of Ukraine; getting Libya out of the WMD racket; getting North Korea to agree to stop their nuke programs; and passing the Education Bill, and the Medicare Drug Plan, and the Tax Cuts, and every other BIG legislative victory Bush and the GOP have had in the last 5 years!
Bush: what a loser! The Dems WISH they could lose like that!
No comments:
Post a Comment