Sometimes liberals make it easy
President Bush's two contributions to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts and soon to be Justice Alito, will have a ripple effect on nominations for years to come. No longer do Democrats hold the cards on the Supreme Court, the fading last hope for the liberal social agenda. Judicial conservatism is now mainstream, and Democratic protestations look pretty pathetic.
Liberals still seem to think it's the 1960s and 1970s. They think Republicans secretly hate women and minorities, they continue to think big government programs will make our lives better, they still think they're smarter than conservatives, and they still think the Supreme Court should implement their social agenda.
The good news is, the majority of Americans have moved into the 21st Century. As the majority Party, Republicans need to have an agenda for transforming government. But one of the best ways to increase Republican political capital is simply to let liberals talk.
In this vein, I was particularly pleased to see the Boston Globe's editorial against confirmation of Alito. (hat tip, Bench Memos) Here is their argument against originalism:
Alito declared his overarching constitutional philosophy of originalism: a strict adherence to the actual written text. In deciding court opinions, he said, ''We should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." Given that, at the time of its adoption, women could not vote and slaves were considered three-fifths of a person, such a philosophy is outdated, to say the least.
Are you kidding me! Is that the best they can come up with? Any good originalist will tell you that we are big fans of the amendment process. We think that instead of the Supreme Court telling us what our new values should be on the basis of their moral judgments, the people should update the Constitution to reflect new values. Coincidentally, the two brilliant examples in the Globe's editorial were both remedied by Constitutional amendment. The people decided that all persons were to count equally in the apportionment of representatives, that slavery was to be outlawed, and that all citizens were entitled to equal protection of the laws regardless of skin color. So they passed the 13th and 14th Amendments. The people later decided women should vote, so they amended the Constitution to guarantee this right.
If Republicans would only put the spotlight on the Nancy Pelosis, Diane Feinsteins, and the Boston Globes of the world. May I suggest this as an important strategy for the 2006 elections?
Liberals still seem to think it's the 1960s and 1970s. They think Republicans secretly hate women and minorities, they continue to think big government programs will make our lives better, they still think they're smarter than conservatives, and they still think the Supreme Court should implement their social agenda.
The good news is, the majority of Americans have moved into the 21st Century. As the majority Party, Republicans need to have an agenda for transforming government. But one of the best ways to increase Republican political capital is simply to let liberals talk.
In this vein, I was particularly pleased to see the Boston Globe's editorial against confirmation of Alito. (hat tip, Bench Memos) Here is their argument against originalism:
Alito declared his overarching constitutional philosophy of originalism: a strict adherence to the actual written text. In deciding court opinions, he said, ''We should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption." Given that, at the time of its adoption, women could not vote and slaves were considered three-fifths of a person, such a philosophy is outdated, to say the least.
Are you kidding me! Is that the best they can come up with? Any good originalist will tell you that we are big fans of the amendment process. We think that instead of the Supreme Court telling us what our new values should be on the basis of their moral judgments, the people should update the Constitution to reflect new values. Coincidentally, the two brilliant examples in the Globe's editorial were both remedied by Constitutional amendment. The people decided that all persons were to count equally in the apportionment of representatives, that slavery was to be outlawed, and that all citizens were entitled to equal protection of the laws regardless of skin color. So they passed the 13th and 14th Amendments. The people later decided women should vote, so they amended the Constitution to guarantee this right.
If Republicans would only put the spotlight on the Nancy Pelosis, Diane Feinsteins, and the Boston Globes of the world. May I suggest this as an important strategy for the 2006 elections?
posted by Anonymous @ 8:53 PM
<< Home