A    C o n s e r v a t i v e    R e s o u r c e    W e b s i t e

Contents: Blog Files and Blog Pages. Essays & Commentary. The Right Parallels. Features.

DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE LIBERAL TROJAN HORSE OF CONSULTATION

Part 1. Separation of Powers

During the guessing game prior to the President's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, Texas Senator John Cornyn wrote: "I believe that the judicial confirmation process in the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, recent developments threaten to further politicize, rather than to solve, the current judicial confirmation crisis."

If you are following the judicial nomination issues in the news you will understand how profoundly correct the senator is.

A recent Gallop Poll suggested that the majority of American people agree with Senator Cornyn.  Revealing what conservatives have been saying all along; That a solid 86 percent of Americans polled correctly believe that the Dems will pursue inappropriate reasons to try and block President Bush's Supreme Court nominees, and that a majority of Americans, like the President, also feel we need more strict constitutionalists on the Supreme Court.

As I've said before, I believe when Justice Rehnquist retires the President should elevate Justice Scalia to Chief Justice and replace him with a justice unquestionably in the so-called Scalia-Thomas intellectual mold, whether it's a woman or an Hispanic.

I agree with Pat Buchanan in one of his recent commentaries at Human Events Online.  The historical, political, and social impact of the right selection by the President to the high court cannot be overstated, especially since this could be the first of three possible openings on the high court during this President's second term.

As Mr. Buchanan said in the same commentary (and probably with a smile) "Let's get it on."

Between the resignation of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the nomination of Judge Roberts, communications in the case of conservatives sounded like preparations for a war worth fighting. In the case of liberals, as usual, it all keeps sounding like promos for a circus of angst everyone knows is not worth the admission price.

In nominating judges that are strict constitutionalists the President can free the majority of the American people for a long time from the perverted confines of modern liberal duplicity, and the reckless intellectual cynicism playing out across the political landscape.

A cynicism and duplicity filtered back and forth across a symbiotic spectrum made up of the media, liberals in congress, and the special interest groups like Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way.

Now justified in their minds with whatever interpretive logic may be conjured up through the courts.

Watching the liberal Democrats in the Senate intensely meandering further away from the Constitution, guided by an evolving, impromptu standard of consultation, demanding to be heard by the Executive Branch regarding the next Supreme Court nominee, was a clear sign of how desperate judicial politics has traveled.

There were several moderate and liberal senators advising the President to nominate a person who would "unite" a divided political landscape.

When did it become the responsibility of a president, any president, via a Supreme Court nominee to "unite" the political landscape?

The short answer would be; When the high court evolved into what liberals believe should be a kind of super-legislature.

Today I suppose the Dems answer would be; Now that the judicial branch has became virtually incorporated into the intellectual modus operandi of liberal cliques in the legislative branch.

Then a President was elected who decided to exercise his constitutional prerogative regarding the nomination of judges as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States.

The President faced a clique of Senators from the minority claiming that if he exercised his lawful constitutional role, and in doing so (pay close attention to this) simultaneously fulfilled the constitutional role of the judicial branch, then he was somehow abusing his power because that minority clique realized their legislative co-opting and quota-building ideas for the high court might be interrupted beyond retrieval, and in jeopardy of extinction.

I guess if America ever shifted that far away from its own Constitution, then perhaps a "quota" or "consensus" nominee, or a nominee from the "political" arena, might make sense to the people at that time.  Thank God, and thank conservatives, that has not happened yet.

Part of the reason the Dems cannot successfully Bork now is because the liberal duplicity and canaballistic quality of their special interest groups have caused the Dems to communicate in a vacuum, and virtually implode as a political force on the landscape of ideas.

First things first though.
Under the current circumstances I believe the calls for a "woman" justice or a justice from the "political" arena that liberals believe would be more "sensitive" to their political pressure, instead of nominating someone already in the court system, are not and should never be in themselves the right approaches to the selection of a Supreme Court Justice.

I doubt and hope that no time in history would warrant that approach.

If there ever is a time in history when lowering the standard to the current level of liberal expediency is accomplished, I think now would be the wrong time to initiate that decline. I also do not believe this President would want to be viewed by history as the one who put that scenario in motion.

A note on the idea of quotas and where it can lead.
I remember several years ago while Fox News Channel was zooming up the ratings meter faster than one could say Patti Ann Browne, Fox News White House Correspondent James Rosen conducted a rare interview with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor following the controversial ruling on the Texas sodomy case (Lawrence v. Texas).

Probably from pressure or advice from news producers, executive editors and/or advertising executives who are either gay or gay sympathizers, Mr. Rosen asked Justice O'Connor if she ever thought a gay person would be nominated to the Supreme Court.

As much as that would be a serious problem in itself, to say the least, another problem is the so-called "newsworthy" bait of that question.

That the high court would be thought of as a venue wherein socio-political quota-thinking should be proportionately reflected is precisely the chaotic opposite of what the Founding Fathers envisioned, and what the text obviously intended to prevent.

With all due respect to Mr. Rosen as a likeable journalist free to do his job, the line of thought via his question is precisely what would do irrepairable damage to the Constitution's prescription for separation of powers.

Not to mention the damage it would inflict on the high court itself.

Issues of ethnic and gender quotas are volatile and problematic enough in our socio-political world as it is.

Yet, when one gives the impression one has in mind that a mere deviant sexual preference should be elevated to an already mistrusted "quota" standard, you are watching the power of modern TV being used in an attempt to indoctrinate viewers.

My point is not to criticize Mr. Rosen as much as it is to clarify how far the mind can be coerced away from constructive distinction once you establish quota thinking.

That the majority of the American people will never feel they "need" and will certainly never (we pray) want a "homosexual" on the Supreme Court, nevertheless, the liberal media will in time try and create the illusion in the public's mind that there is a need for a homosexual on the Supreme Court via the powers of indoctrination of TV communications.

Let's hope the confirmation process for John Roberts and the American people will be appropriately focused and introspective, yet delineated by a reasonable time-frame, concluding with an up or down vote within a predetermined schedule, period.

Part 2.  The Liberal Consultation Game

Exercising a very generous diplomatic respect, instead of the capitulation they continued in their unbelievable arrogance to expect, liberal Democrats and several liberal Republicans were granted their media hyped "consultations" with the Executive Branch prior to the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pointed out that the "consultation" thing prior to the nomination was in the first place, unprecedented, and one might also add, unnecessary.

You are watching liberals going through another phase of their ritualistically muddled and often contradictory rationale-building to support false arguments against, and false portrayals of judges.
A variation on the same communications circus the American people had to witness for four years until several highly qualified nominees were suddenly, and finally confirmed several months ago.

This rationale-building, informed by an evolving standard, started out against a Supreme Court nominee the President had not even nominated.

Majority Leader Frist called it what it was; an attempt to co-nominate the next Supreme Court justice.

Some of the rationale building the liberals were doing you would not believe.

Right after Justice O'Connor's surprise resignation liberals talked about an O'Connor clone, that is, a so called "swing-voter" on the court, a "consensus" building judge. Some moderate Republicans also suggested the same.

That idea of a consensus judge, whatever that really is, then morphed into an even more transparent idea that the high court at least needs a judge who is not a judge so to speak, but as much a politician, that is, someone from the political arena.

We could ask Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former high court nominee Robert Bork if they think that is a good idea.

In the current atmosphere, it is a novel, high school essay kind of idea that should not be considered viable at this time.

Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, who also have super discerning intellects, learned what politically oriented minds can do to the nominating process.

If the qualified nominee can't be choked and drowned in the cesspools of liberal discontent, especially in the case of Justice Thomas, then the "politicians" try to keep the nomination from going forward.

This is certainly not to imply that there are currently no Senators, or even someone from a non-legal profession with judicial intelligence who might make a great Supreme Court justice.

At this time it is the source and timing of the idea that gives it an expedient, superficial and suspicious ring.

The beginning stages of the liberal's evolving standards of consultation included New York Senator Charles Schumer's ridiculous call for a "summit."

When this summit idea did not take hold, during the extraordinary and unprecedented diplomatic effort from The White House to solicit views and specific names from the legislative branch, in what might be called the evolving duplicity of Schumerspeak, suspecting correctly that The White House might not implement the "advice" that he is free to give, the senator then concluded that it was not a "real" consultation.

Of course the Senator meant that if the President did not capitulate to the liberal's call for one of several types of nominees, then the consultation was somehow "unreal."

One of my favorite pieces of advice came not from the liberal legislature, but from someone whose network controls so many of the liberals in Congress.

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, during an appearance on Fox News Live (apparently serious) advised the President that since he is not going to serve a third term, he should therefore capitulate to the liberal view, and for the "sake of unifying the country" nominate a non-conservative judge. In other words, in her view a swing-vote clone of retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

It sounded like perhaps one of Ms Aron's staff members had misinformed her and she thought she was appearing on Comedy Central.

An unidentified and as far as we know, a reliable source (who will remain anonymous) informed me that prior to selecting a Supreme Court nominee The White House was almost as impressed with Ms. Aron's advice as it was with Senator Schumer's call for a "summit."
Another source revealed that The White House was even considering giving Ms. Aron a prominent seat at that proposed summit.
As my posting deadline approached, flurries of rumors were flying around Washington. It was at first believed that the White House had not set a definitive date for a summit, not because the President selected a nominee and so there would be no need for a summit, but because The White House was debating whether to seat Ms. Aron at the right hand of, or at the left hand of Senator Schumer.

Seriously though, as presented, the calls for a "consensus" judge, or a judge from the political arena who would be it was presumed a "swing-vote" judge, are all ways of superimposing elements of the liberal agenda from the legislature onto the Supreme Court and everyone now sees through it.

It would be counterproductive to the Constitutional separation of powers, and further confuse the role of the Supreme Court and the administration of justice at the highest level. First things first.

As Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions said: "At this point in history, we need a proven professional who understands the Constitution and is faithful to it ... We don't need another politician on the bench."