What Liberals Don't Get About Supreme Court Nominees

Jesse Jackson, Jr. has an excellent critique of liberal criticisms of Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

Disappointed conservatives are approaching the nomination from an ideological perspective and they are not sure Harriet Miers is pure enough for them. Liberals are concerned about the lack of a paper trail and judicial record by which they can judge her views on the issues. Liberals have the cart before the horse.

Supreme Court interpretation of issues flows from the structure of a broad ideological framework. Philosophically, that structure may lead a Justice to interpret the Constitution in broad or narrow terms. A Justice will see the Constitution as static - as a "strict constructionist," "originalist" or "literalist" - or as a living document. It will lead a Justice to an interpretation that helps to build a more perfect union or one that perpetuates state-centered federalism (states' rights).

President Bush and his conservative allies are focused on the broad ideological argument out of which Supreme Court interpretation of issues will flow. Liberals are merely focused on the end product - her position on the issues.

Liberal civil rights groups want to know Ms. Miers stand on the issues of affirmative action, economic set-asides, racial discrimination and police-community relations. Liberal voting rights groups want to know whether her interpretation of the criteria for proving voter discrimination in court will be based on proving a discriminatory "effect" or must they prove a discriminatory "intent." Liberal women's groups want to know her views on the issue of abortion and whether there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. Liberal labor wants to know where she stands on labor-management issues.

Liberals don't seem to understand that where she comes down on virtually all of these issues will depend on this ideological framework. Conservatives are clear.

President Bush is not focused on issues. He only wants to make sure that she, like him, is an ideologically oriented state-centered federalist. One only needs to remember how Bush handled the issue of the Confederate Flag in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential campaign to be clear on his orientation ("I'm sure the good people of South Carolina are perfectly capable of deciding this issue"). He knows that in the name of states' rights she will decide the issues in a conservative, narrow, strict constructionist, literal, originalist and static way and not in a way that would help to build a more perfect union.

So while I don't know Ms. Miers personal or religious views on a wide range of issues - abortion, civil rights, voting, labor and the environment - I'm virtually certain about her ideological judicial orientation and, therefore, can pretty much predict where she will come down on these issues.

Whether abortion, civil rights, voting rights, labor rights or the environment her basic orientation is going to be - based on the Tenth Amendment - "let the states decide" and "Congress doesn't have the authority."

(Whole thing.)

Comments

[Nate Hertel]

And what's not reported here is that liberals are much more unprincipled than conservatives.

Centuries of Senate tradition has recognized the power of the President to nominate judicial nominees (it's in a thing called the Constitution) and the power of the Senate to 'advise and consent'. Advise and consent has historically meant determine if the nominee has the temperament and capacity to rule on the given court. Democrats have proved incapable of realizing that it would be harmful if ideology became a part of the criteria.

John Roberts, who even the jester Chuck Schumer called one of the most qualified candidiates to ever come before the Judiciary Committee, was confirmed with only half the votes of democrats in the Senate (plus Jefford's, who is now a democrat, vote making it 23-22). Contrast that to the 96-3 vote for Ginsburg, whose views couldn't possibly be more offensive to conservatives. Yeah, and yb the way, she replaced Justice White, who along with Rehnquist dissented form Roe v. Wade. Democrats have *never* sought "balance" on the court previously.

Liberals are a despciable species of parasite with no concern for integrity or principles, and have demonstrated a contempt for any consistency in the values they claim to have.

http://radarblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/principled-opposition-to-miers.html

[ruthie]

What I find bizarre about this comment: do you think we were asleep for the entirety of the Clinton presidency, and didn't somehow notice that the Republicans created a backlog of nominees to the federal bench? Consistency and integrity, indeed! Senate conservatives are consistent about pursuing the interests of their own demographically small constituency, and are utterly faithful to the principle of serving their own narrow interests.