Lock and Load! We're Going to War!
Mood:  energetic
Now Playing: Bach's Passion of Christ
Topic: Replacing O'Connor


With the surprise announcement that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will be retiring from the Supreme Court, the nation suddenly finds itself preparing for a political civil war. Needless to say, this is going to be a nasty, polarizing fight of Lord of the Rings proportions! Within minutes of the official announcement, a number of Democrats (the Orks!), most notably Ted Kennedy amongst them, had rushed to the nearest microphone to issue an ultimatum to the president: either appoint a replacement justice that meets the loony-Left’s standard of quality (i.e., a justice that values a bloated and powerful central government more than the time-tested wisdom of the Constitution) or prepare for political obstructionism of immense magnitude.

For President Bush and the Grand Old Party (the Free Folk!), it is put-up or shut-up time.

As the recent, nasty confirmation battles over a few conservative appellate court nominees indicate, the Democrats are not going to go quietly into “that good night.” With every election relegating their party to the fringes of political authority, they fully understand that the court system is their last hold on real political power. Without the courts, especially the Supreme Court, their ability to continue to remake America in their twisted image will all but vanish. That is something they cannot allow…ever, no matter what the cost.

Conservatives, likewise, are determined to bring sanity to America’s legal system as they know that it has done real harm to the very fabric of this nation. From the legalized infanticide of Roe v. Wade, to the Darth Vader-like expansion of eminent domain powers in Kelo et al. v. City of New London, conservatives are prepared to set things right. “Enough!” they declare, of judges who seem to often base their decisions upon everything but the U.S. Constitution. The recent sorry history of the Court has it basing its decisions on everything from “constitutional penumbras” (that are really nothing more than black-robed chimeras) to international law! Heck, in McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union and Van Orden v. Perry, the highest court in the land even used the convoluted logic of geographic location to determine whether or not the Ten Commandments could be displayed on public land! Silly me, I thought the First Amendment would be a better yardstick….

The whole issue revolves around the concept of judges being “strict constructionists” or not. You see, the Left of this great nation believes that the U.S. Constitution is a “living document,” that is, that the meaning of the Constitution changes from time to time; it is subject to reinterpretation whenever a judge feels the need. As anyone with even a modicum of intellect can realize, such an idea will (and has) led to legal anarchy. Once justices are no longer bound to the black-and-white, written word of the Constitution, they are free to make up the law as they go along. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that what you see is what you get; that there is nothing hidden between the lines of that hallowed document. It is as the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the functioning of a limited government---no constitutional shadows are found, no surveys of European legal thought are necessary. This is the most sensible legal outlook. Think of it this way: would you want to play a game of chess with me using a set of “living rules?” If you did, you might discover, to your detriment, that all my pawns have the power of queens---just because, at the moment, I say they do ….

Now the Democrats are going to filibuster anyone President Bush nominates unless he is a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Republicans must be prepared for this. Even Senator McCain and his fellow apostate Republicans cannot prevent this (ironically, his “deal” lasted a mere few weeks). The so-called “nuclear” or “constitutional” option is going to be put back on the table. It has to be as a filibuster cannot be tolerated with such an important position needing to be filled. Compromise is not an option! The nation needs a hardcore, strict constructionist in that High Court chair. A lesser, not as well vetted candidate cannot be allowed; no more Warrens, please! We had enough of stealth-libs, thank you very much.

Democrats are going to try and argue that since Sandra Day O’Connor was a “moderate” or “swing-voter”, that a similar person should be appointed. Nonsense. Just because Justice O’Connor preferred inconsistent legal reasoning does not mean a similar candidate must be appointed. We seek constitutional clarity first and foremost, not switch hitters.

So it comes down to this: neither side can afford to back down---the stakes are just too high. One thing is for sure: the American people twice elected President Bush, and twice increased the number of Republicans in Congress. They are expecting noticeable results. They are watching. The G.O.P. cannot back down. This is the moment when they must decide if they prepared to fight for what they ostensibly believe in. The side that flinches loses---perhaps for years to come.

Lock and load, we’re going to war!