The American Spectator

p> COURTING DISASTER br> Re: George Neumayr’s War by Judicial Review : /p>

I agree with George.

p>In addition, let’s put Richard Perle, David Frum, Doug Feith, David Wurmser, Scooter Libby, Judith Miller, Laurie Mylroie and the rest of the Chalabi Lobby in detention centers as enemy combatants until the treason investigation involving Ahmed Chalabi is concluded. br> — Charles Bowen /p>

The sense of total frustration evident in George Neumayr’s “War by Judicial Review” is palpable. Like many a concerned American, Neumayr senses and writes what a (conservative) “Court watcher” already knows: that a majority of The Supremes are leading this nation down a primrose path, aided and abetted by the likes of the radicals of the ACLU. In fact, one could argue that the ACLU already sits in on Court deliberations and participates in their decision-making. For the non-historically challenged, it will be recalled that the critics of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nomination to the high court pointed precisely to her direct ties to that extremist organization. And she has not disappointed her former associates. From her untrammeled support of the world’s most radical abortion license, strident objection to the death penalty, repudiation of all-male military institutions and, by her “winks and nods” embrace of the evisceration of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment by her unlimited apologetics for affirmative action, she has, conveniently and effectively, served the cause of her former associates. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” wrote one justice in the last century, but the decisions taken by the Court over the past several decades demonstrate that it is becoming one. And there is precious little that can be done about it.

p>It is nearly 8 years since the neo-con journal, First Things , offered an insightful examination of the judicial usurpation of politics. In each of the five essays, the authors, all well known and respected figures in constitutional jurisprudence, repeatedly underscored, “The illegitimacy of the Court’s departures from the Constitution…” I cannot see any evidence that this “usurpation of politics” has, or will, change. Neumayr, and, I suspect, the majority of Americans would agree with Justice Scalia, who wrote in 1996: “Day by day, case by case, (the Court) is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”