By Lisa Fabrizio on 7.15.09 @ 6:06AM
A "great American story" adds to the nightmare.
Once again all those who pay attention to national politics turn
their eyes to Washington to witness the Senate confirmation
hearings of a U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee. Now, it is to
be assumed that Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed easily,
with or without Republican support. Still, the hearings are
always interesting, if not sadly predictable.
We will continue to hear terms like "empathy" and "super
precedents" and ultimately, when a woman or minority is involved,
we will once again be treated to a dissertation that theirs is a
"great American story." This is a template that is a well-worn
part of these proceedings; but no more so than when applied to
liberals. As if Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas did
not work hard, did not burn the midnight oil, or did not prosper
as the result of the love, support, suffering and sacrifices of
their families.
Yet it is ironic that those on the left who celebrate this "great
American story" are proponents of a political philosophy that
would deny its fairy-tale ending to a great majority of their
fellow citizens. And although her confirmation is all but
guaranteed, it will be interesting to see if the minority members
of the Judiciary Committee will have the perspicacity to point
this out. And it wouldn't be that hard.
The application of only a dab of common sense would show that it
is not the empathy, accomplishments or even the character of
judges or lawmakers that make the American dream possible: it is
supremely and solely the enumeration of our rights as prescribed
by the U.S. Constitution. And it is only a nominee's fitness to
uphold those rights as written, that should be at
consideration at these hearings.
Sadly, as has become uncomfortably common in these confirmation
hearings, the most glaring revelation is the high level of
senatorial ignorance of the plain words of the U. S.
Constitution. On Monday, Herb Kohl spoke of the Constitutional
guarantees of "personal privacy," then droned on about the
"separation of church and state," an issue that might better be
understood if the word church was capitalized.
And that great legal scholar, Dianne Feinstein, in bewailing the
SCOTUS decision that stripped a "fundamental Constitutional
protection" from women who want to kill their unborn children up
to the day of birth, said that judges should be more than
"umpires calling balls and strikes." Maybe, but senators should
have a greater knowledge of the law of our land than so many
bleacher bums.
Lindsey Graham has said that elections matter; and he is right,
they do. But that should have no effect on the law.
Unfortunately, the opinion that we should or shouldn't faithfully
adhere to the Constitution has now become a political issue. My
opinion is that, of all of the depredations visited upon this
land by liberals, this is the most dangerous to the future of
this country. If the nation wants to hold a poll on the U.S.
Constitution, it should be done as so wonderfully laid out in
Article V of that document, and not every four years on the first
Tuesday of November.
That Sonia Sotomayor has famously said that appeals courts are
where "policy is made," and that a "wise Latina" might be a
better judge than a white male is, of course disturbing, but not
surprising. These are just liberal beliefs spoken out loud. And
we can expect more of the same from future Obama judicial
nominations. But so far as the SCOTUS is concerned, unless he
serves two terms or one of the Constitutionalist judges dies or
retires soon, what we have is a liberal replacing a liberal. But,
the bar is further lowered as new and more disturbing paradigms
are established.
People say they experience a profound sense of satisfaction and
pride that a woman/Latina will sit on the high court. It's time
for the general populace to stop experiencing these feelings
vicariously and start living them out as American citizens using
that perfect instrument of personal and national freedom: the
U.S. Constitution.
Are we a government of laws or of men? Or of wise Latinas?
topics:
Constitution, Supreme Court Nominations, Liberalism
