Well, this may be the season for the long rumored retirements from the Supreme Court. As speculation grows,
and factions position themselves to go to battle, will confirmation hearings turn into the Borking of another jurist
or two? With the prospects of another shameful saga, one might imagine that the majority on such a court could pick the next
president! Appointees for life become entrenched political creatures - who would think it possible? It seems like the liberals,
and those who claim to be progressive, are determined to forestall anybody remotely tainted with that conservative label.
For these groups, a strict constructionist is anyone who can read the text of a law and rules on its constitutionality based
upon the original document. Far too dangerous to have such judges elevated to the top court.
If the sentiments expressed by Wade Henderson, executive director of one such leadership conference is representative, President Bush will be in for a bloody
fight: "If history is any guide, it is quite likely, given the president's stated preference for justices like Thomas and
Scalia, that the next Supreme Court nominee is likely to be an ideological extremist".
While that may not shock most habitual observers of power politics, the average American often forgets that
the revolutionary extremists of their day, created this nation. The negative connotation that the social collectivist infers
upon traditional and restrained court decisions, demonstrates just how counter their own ideology has evolved from the principles
upon which the country are based. The radicalism of the 1776 Revolution was intended to establish a country where Liberty
was central to the fabric of our society.
The eternal conflict that comes out of the political struggle is natural. The reliance upon laws to arbitrate
that friction versus legislating new law from the bench, was the original intent. The failure to abide by and adhere to that
role has directly lead to our present social discord and civic hostility. The Supreme Court was never chartered to supersede
or replace Congress and the Presidency was never meant to surpass both. But what has evolved is an interlocking union that
insulates the functions of the federal government, whenever any branch decides that the supreme law of the land interferes
with immediate political objectives.
The hideous civil liberty record of the current attorney general, illustrates this hazard to individual sovereignty.
Defying his own Inspector General, John Ashcroft justifies and defends, that the most unconstitutional of all recent edicts,
does not go far enough. "The Patriot Act gave us the tools we needed to integrate our law enforcement and intelligence capabilities to win the war on
terror," Mr. Ashcroft said. "It allowed the Department of Justice to use the same tools from the criminal process, the same
tools on terrorists that we use to combat mobsters or drug dealers. We use these tools to gather intelligence and to prevent
terrorists from unleashing more death and destruction within our country. We use these tools to connect the dots. We use these
tools to save innocent lives."
Contrast this attitude of despotism that intellectualizes and tries to vindicate the indefensible, with a
sober assessment of balance and proper purpose. "To my mind, the purpose of the Patriot Act is to secure our liberties
and not to undermine them . . . I believe the department and Congress must be vigilant towards short-term gains which
ultimately may cause long-term harm to the spirit of liberty and equality," crisply commented Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., "We must maintain a fundamental commitment to ensure the protection of Americans while defending the
beliefs that make us America."
Will the Supreme Court put an end to this maniac experiment and flirtation with fascism, or will the next
round of neo activist appointments to the court, ratify the transformation of America into a police state? A true strict constructionist
would try and judge Ashcroft and put on trial the entire DoJ for treason. But who is left to prosecute them? Why stop there!
Congress certainly bears infinite disgrace for shredding what little remains of the Bill of Rights. And what about a Senate
that lacked the courage to convict the last impeached president? Sadly, don’t expect too much from a tribunal that owes
its nomination and confirmation to this cabal of political hacks.
If you still have doubts about those inconvenient restriction placed upon government by the Founding Fathers,
just follow the lead of the bipartisan commission that recommends an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ensure the continuity of government in the
event of a catastrophic terrorist attack on the capital. Their answer is to allow governors to appoint replacements in Congress
until a special election can be held. The commission included prominent Republicans, such as former Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich of Georgia, former House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel of Illinois and former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson, as
well as prominent Democrats in the Clinton administration, such as former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, former Health
and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala and former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta.
Even this crew of displaced libertarians concede that an amendment would be necessary to change the meaning
and process instituted in the constitution. But short of such an alteration, would the new supreme justices accomplish the
same aim based upon their judicial review? All too often securing the dominance of the establishment is the dominant role
of the court.
While replacements to the Supreme Court will have significant impact on decisions, the lasting consequences
are more likely to perpetuate the further centralization of executive power than to restore personal liberty. There is nothing
patriotic in destroying the essence of the nation to save and protect the government. Past history has proven that the law
is too important to let whims and political pressure sway the Supreme Court and change principle, based upon the mood of the
moment. Rally to support those justices that understand that conservatism requires the preservation of civil liberties, and
that the real terror, frequently comes from those who do the protecting . . .
SARTRE - June 8, 2003