One detail was missing from President Obama’s list of
qualifications for his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on
the Supreme Court: Any mention of the Constitution.
He just doesn’t get it.
At a time when Americans are furious over Obama’s headlong
plunge into socialism, when his Democrat party is losing
elections and hemorrhaging incumbents because voters reject their
big-government “remaking America” agenda, the chameleon forgot to
adapt.
The master wordsmith — who knows how to say what people
want to hear — blew it.
He didn’t state the main qualification for any person who
serves in government, the absence of which has lit a brushfire of
discontent, fidelity to the Constitution.
He and his allies haven’t taken that first step to recovery
— acknowledging their problem. It’s their utter disregard for
the Constitution that is causing this big mess. The concept of a
limited government, restrained in what it can and should do, is
foreign to them, while for most Americans it’s in our DNA. This
is what puts Obama at odds with so many Americans.
President Obama said his Supreme Court nominee will be
someone who knows “that in a democracy, powerful interests must
not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary
citizens.”
Newsflash for the president! The most “powerful interest”
in America today that is drowning out citizens’ voices is….
the government!
Citizens are trying all kinds of ways to be heard by their
congressmen — phone calls, e-mails, rallies in districts,
rallies in D.C., voting against the party in power.
In Obama’s mind, “ordinary citizens” are paid ACORN
protesters but not unpaid Tea Partiers. His version of “Let them
eat cake” is “they can’t get a job and their doctor quit, but
they’ll have insurance.”
Anger at the cap-and-trade bill drove huge turnouts to town
hall meetings. How did congressmen respond? They held town halls
in gated communities or avoided meetings altogether. They
denigrated their constituents, calling them “brown shirts” or
“Astroturf.”
Remember the kerfuffle over James O’Keefe getting arrested
in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office? Overlooked in the story is why he
was there. He was trying to find out why her constituents’ phone
calls weren’t being answered. Was there a problem with the phone
system, or was her staff ignoring the calls?
The best picture that captures this arrogance is
Nancy
Pelosi pounding an oversized gavel in her hand
while marching with congressmen to vote for the health care bill
— in defiance of the thousands of protesters surrounding the
Capitol begging “kill the bill.”
One thing we can all agree on is that the Constitution is
the foundation for our country, the main unifying element, what
distinguishes us as America. It provides defined roles for the
government, based on the profound recognition of the sinful
tendency of mankind to abuse power.
So why do liberal politicians have a problem when people
bring it up?
When asked by a reporter where the Constitution authorizes
Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance, Pelosi
cackled, “Are you serious?”
The same question posed to Rep. Phil Hare (D-Illinois)
elicited this classic, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on
this.”
It’s not only the Constitution that is swept aside when
liberals have a goal to accomplish.
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Florida and former judge, impeached
for bribery) was caught on tape stating, “‘There ain’t no rules
around here — we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And
therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we
make ‘em up as we go along,”
Another “Obama standard” for a Supreme Court justice is
someone who has “a keen understanding of how the law affects the
daily lives of the American people.”
We all know what he means. This is the “empathy” standard.
A person must be black, Hispanic, a woman, or a homosexual to be
compassionate and just. They must have experienced discrimination
to understand “the American experience” (discrimination against
people who are white or male or conservative or Christian doesn’t
count).
The irony is that this is the reason why Americans are
overwhelmingly against judicial activism. Because we’ve seen —
and experienced — how judicial arrogance, the kind that puts a
thumb on the scale for the judge’s preferred party, impacts our
daily lives. It leads to the slaughter of unborn children,
censoring religious expression, government seizing private
property, unleashing obscenity, imposing same-sex “marriage”
(thus forcing children to be taught about homosexuality), and
frivolous lawsuits.
A poll taken last year found that 9 out of 10 Republicans
and more than 8 out of 10 Democrats agreed: “When considering a
new Justice for the United States Supreme Court, I would prefer
that my United States senators look for a man or woman who will
interpret the law as it is written and not take into account his
or her personal viewpoints and experiences.”
President Obama has an opportunity to change course and
show “empathy” with Americans — by choosing a Supreme Court
nominee with a strong history of fidelity to the
Constitution.
