Pat Boone
Friday, July 29, 2005

Are we really supposed to take him seriously when he does his "No man cometh to the high court but by me" shtick? Along with Teddy Kennedy and a few other senators whose view of "mainstream" skews decidedly to the left of the rest of us, he makes grand pronouncements about requirements to be satisfied in the confirmation of the president's Supreme Court nominee, and we'd yawn if only his seeming actually to believe his own puffery weren't so infuriating.

Story Continues Below

Chuck and Teddy's party didn't elect their guy president, and there's no reason they should now share in presidential powers. In all the debating about the possible filibuster of Bush judicial appointments, reasonable people have pointed out that the Senate procedural trappings are only of the Senate's own making. Although it might cause some temporary fuss, it would satisfy the Constitution's "advice and consent of the Senate" language if, perhaps after a reasonable period of giving their opinions publicly or privately to the president, 50 or more sitting U.S. senators merely signed on to a letter to the White House consenting to this specific nominee.

A few especially liberal Senate Democrats have been engineering such unprecedented creative obstruction of this president's judicial nominations for so long, it seems that when an actual Supreme Court vacancy came, the White House had to practically become Gary Kasparov playing political chess against a pre-programmed Big Blue (known in the Senate by the more familiar name "Big Blue State Meanies"). It was necessary to nominate not just a great candidate, but one who could get past the dreary litmus tests of those on the left who simply can't accept the possibility that a future court may undo some of the mutations to our national DNA brought by certain prior decisions.

Speaking as a Judiciary Committee member, Schumer sounded rational and conciliatory on TV Sunday, revealing he'd already had a personal meeting with Judge Roberts and averring that his favorable vote was "possible" if Roberts could convince him of possessing a "judicial philosophy" that is not some variety of "extreme righwing conservative," but "mainstream."

What do you think senators like Schumer and Leahy and Kennedy mean by "mainstream"? Something in line with the thinking of most of us folks they represent? Or do they mean the "progressive" moving on from many traditional guidelines that brought us some good years but now seem outdated to them?

Is it "mainstream" to hold the blanket abortion license granted by the Roe v. Wade decision as true-blue Americanism when it was rendered by a split decision, with the now-sitting chief justice among the dissenting? Is it "mainstream" to protect a right to partial-birth abortion, now opposed by 80 percent of Americans? To outlaw school prayer that 85 percent of the voters want allowed?

Does "mainstream" to Schumer and his Senate comrades mean regarding as immutable every high court decision that contributed to making society less clear-eyed, moral and Judeo-Christian, and more confused, relativistic and atheistic? Does "mainstream" mean regarding as not immutable the "living document" of the Constitution, so that we bow one direction and another with emerging trends and "politically correct" notions?

When host Brit Hume insisted Schumer say whether he and his cohorts wouldn't be strongly influenced by ultraliberal groups, the answer was "You listen to everybody's viewpoint, but we have to make up our own minds." If that's fine for a U.S. senator, isn't it even more what we want in a Supreme Court justice?

Senators, please. Advise upon, and give consent for, nominees who aren't wimps who never formed personal opinions but who are strong individuals with well-thought-out opinions. Make sure that they know the Constitution inside out and that they care a lot about the thought processes and intentions that guided our founders. Such nominees we can trust to make up their own minds. But, personally, I fear that may be the last thing Schumer means by "mainstream."

In the fussing about "separation of church and state," what gets less notice than the Constitution's words "no law respecting an establishment of religion" are its words "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office." Logic less strained than that which makes a Ten Commandments display unconstitutional makes asking a prospective Supreme Court justice about his "deeply held beliefs" unconstitutional. Will the ACLU bring a court case to remedy John Roberts' suffering infringement of his rights if senators ask about his religious beliefs?

I cannot imagine the executive or judicial branches of the government (even in my best ACLU-Gone-Wild fantasy) effectively protecting Judge Roberts from infringement of his constitutional rights by the legislative branch in his confirmation hearings. Swearing to defend the Constitution is required in the presidential oath and in oaths required of many in the legislative, judicial, law enforcement and military realms of American life. But ultimately and fundamentally our political system places the responsibility and the sovereignty in (the Constitution's very first words) "We the People."

"The people themselves ... [are] the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power," wrote Thomas Jefferson as he discredited the Marbury vs. Madison ruling and the concept of judicial review as a protective feature of American government. Attendant with our sovereignty, our duty to be "the true corrective of abuses" should activate our relying not on a branch of the government but on ourselves. Loudly condemning any questioning of Judge Roberts' religious inclinations should be our reflex, and threatening the electoral survival of any prosecutorial senators should be our commitment.

I've pointed out in these columns previously that protecting the state from religious harassment wasn't the reason for the First Amendment. Freedom for religion from state harassment was.

Some - who, in my estimation, have the preceding upside down - are preparing now to ask questions about the degree and form of religiosity not only of Judge Roberts but also of his wife. Nowhere is the division of labor, the division of faith, between the two sides debating his confirmation in starker contrast than in the choice whether or not to ask such questions.

Related Article:
What the First Amendment Is Not For

Editor's note:
Rush Limbaugh Says the War for the Court Has Begun! Find Out Details - Click Here Now
David McCullough: God Saved America in 1776. Read It - Click Here