Monday, July 18, 2005

Thoughts from the Right on how "Mary Landrieu Explains 'Extraordinary Circumstances'"

William Bloomfield of Thoughts from the Right has this post on Mary Landrieu of the "Gang of Fourteen". She wants to see nominees like "seven of the nine" justices get their fair up-or-down vote. Observe:
On FNS, Landrieu explained: "I'm part of the group that doesn't want to filibuster, that wants to encourage a nominee that can get broad consensus, like the seven of the nine that are currently serving. I hope we can."
Mr. Bloomfield wisely takes issue with the obvious:
Woa! Slow down Senator Landrieu. So you object to two of the justices serving on the Supreme Court as non-consensus justices? It's pretty clear that Landrieu is referring to Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court's renowned Originalist justices.

By Landrieu's statement, I think it can be inferred that Landrieu will filibuster if President Bush nominates someone like current Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. In other words, Landrieu and the other Democrats will filibuster if President Bush keeps his promise of nominating judges like Scalia and Thomas.
He gives a cogent analysis of the likely implications and consequences of her statement. In short, it doesn't look good for the Schumer "open war" filibuster wing of the Democratic Senate.

Either the compromise means something or it means nothing. There's nothing "extraordinary" about one's judicial philosophy. Any attempt to claim that it is hijacks the authentic meaning from the word. Such action would show that the Democrats were never serious about giving the President's nominations an up-or-down vote. Considering how deferential the Republicans were toward former President Clinton's nominees, the behavior of the current Democrats in the Senate shows a party that has become unhinged.

The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the constitutionality of US and State law since the establishment of Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison. This does not mean that the SCOTUS can arbitrarily interprete what the constitution says in order to legally justify a politically correct agenda that doesn't pass muster in the Legislature. If the Democrats are honest about the proper role of Supreme Court Justices, they'll give up on arbitrary attempts to ensure another Judicial legislature makes it to the bench. If they're not, welcome to politics as usual, even if it costs the nation the Rule of Law and our nation's constitutional separation of powers.