The Battle We Needed
Published November 03, 2005
With President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito, Republicans have received exactly what they wanted - a solid conservative - and exactly what they needed - a fight that will re-galvanize the conservative base.
There should be absolutely no doubt among conservatives as to Alito's credentials, whether philosophical, academic or those related to experience. He has developed a reputation for a commitment to the rule of law and judicial restraint - demonstrating his understanding that the proper role of a judge is to strictly interpret and apply the law and the Constitution, rather than legislate personal opinions from the bench.
Judge Alito has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past seventy years. In his fifteen years on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals he has participated in thousands of cases and written hundreds of opinions. He has been unanimously confirmed by the US Senate twice; once as a US District Attorney, and as a circuit judge in 1990.
Among his opinions, he voted to uphold Pennsylvania's right to require that husbands be notified by their wives prior to the abortion of their unborn children; he held that Christian and Jewish symbols could be displayed with other more secular holiday symbols, as it did not violate the separation of church and state; and he has ruled that anti-harassment policies that prevented Christians from preaching against homosexuality were out of bounds.
Republicans have fought for at least a generation to build a more judicially conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Many presidential elections and several lackluster appointments later we're close to making forward progress. Of the five Regan/Bush appointees only Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have been reliable conservatives. Replacing O'Connor with Alito will likely have the effect of making Kennedy the new "swing" vote on the high court, which is better than O'Connor filling that role as Kennedy tends to be slightly to her right in terms of judicial philosophy.
By winning now, conservatives put themselves in a position to achieve a true conservative majority with the next nomination, should Justice Stevens be replaced prior to the next presidential election.
Further, Republicans win by rallying their base around a cause it holds dear. It is no secret that conservatives have had their disagreements with the administration. Issues such as federal spending, Medicare expansion and immigration policies are sore spots, but they have not caused all of the various conservative factions to revolt simultaneously. Judicial reform - and by extension judicial nominations - is more dear to the hearts of conservatives as the judiciary is, like it or not, an institution that touches virtually every aspect of our society, government and politics. It has strayed far outside the lines laid out by Mr. Madison.
- The Battle We Needed
- Published: November 03, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Law and Rights, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Drew McKissick
- Drew McKissick's BC Writer page
- Drew McKissick's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
"Republicans ... are longing for the leadership to act like a majority and to fight the important fights.
Well written, but with the leadership being investigated and indicted, I doubt that they will be able to do much of anything. They had their chance, and other than a refocus of NASA (which doesn't count because only a few people realize how important this move was), they've done little to endear themselves to the American voter.
Shaivo was a circus.
Katrina was an exposé on cronyism and incompetence.
Iraq, can you say "economy busting quagmire?"
Health Care? Social Security Reform? Immigration? Homeland Security? Torture of Detainees?
Aw man, I'm not sure the tide is going your way right now...
Republicans are very evil people!
Yeah, damn those Republicans. The don't stand up like the majority pary.
They should have let Shiavo's husband, with his new family, starve Terri to death while her parents watched in horror. Damn them Republicans!!!
Bush did not act on Katrina. The fact that he legally couldn't doesn't matter. Damn them Republicans!!!
Bush should have let Saddam be. Saddam was only trying to get nuclear weapons, he didn't have them yet. So what if he was killing his own people. So what if he was paying Palestinian terrorists. It is none of our business, yet. Damn them Republicans!!!
Them Republicans are ruining the system!!! We have to let social security go to hell. So we have something to blame the Republicans on later. Damn them Republicans!!!
And Home land security. Who cares if haven't been attacked since 9/11??? That doesn't matter. Damn them Republicans!!!
There are reports of soldiers harrassing TERRORSISTS. How dare those Republicans for not giving the Death Penalty to those soldiers who torture the terrorsists. Damn those Republicans!!!
And don't get me started on Health Care!!!
Republicans are the Devil!!!
Drew McK - I think you're right about the tonic effect that this nomination will have for conservatives, it is the fight that we have wanted for a long time - laying aside the larger question of why the unelected judiciary has so much power in the first place.
As to Bush's presidency, he may see some rebound in his poll numbers, but there is more exhaustion and frustration within the GOP caused by W than a good appointment to the supremes can overcome. Fifth may overstate a little - but the movement is already looking beyond W - too much baggage to contend with. If Iraq turns out OK, it won't redound for Bush's benefit - there is too much incompetence to contend with. My thought is that conservatives are looking for another face - one not too tainted with W's negatives.
Not to mention that the traditional Republicans are just chomping at the bit for the Theocons to prove themselves as truly loony and out of touch as we all know them to be, so that they can either be marginalized or driven out of the party alltogether.
Dave
Dave makes a good point. As I've stated before, the fusionism project of National Review and Frank Meyer to link together the commonalities of libertarian and traditionalist conservatives was a shotgun wedding in the 60's, 70's and 80's; held together by common interest of anti-soviet foreign policy. The entrance of the new right in the late 70's, and specifically the religous right - with their johnny one note insistence on the primacy of abortion, prayer in schools etc.. - has put incredible strain on the GOP. The old line GOP - country club republicans and traditionalist alike - see the numbers and intensity these folks bring, but they are just as likely to shoot themselves and the GOP with their rhetoric.
It would be very difficult to marginalize the theo-cons in Texas (or at least West Texas), and to drive them out would be even more difficult. It would take sustained assualt by the moderate and traditional legs of the party - and would be hugely embarassing and confusing to the rank and file.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/39003)
You need to put down the crack pipe for a second. This presidency is toast.