Today on Blogcritics
Home » Sekulow for the Supreme Court

Sekulow for the Supreme Court

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Like many conservatives, I was stunned by President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The only plausible point in Bush’s favor is that he believes Miers to be a reliable conservative who can be confirmed with a minimal expense of political capital, giving him time to flog languishing legislation on social security and a host of other issues early in his term. But he may have underestimated conservatives’ deep desire for a political battle royal over judicial nominations and constitutional interpretation.

Frankly, I’m tired of supposedly conservative office-holders who shy from defending the eminently defensible view that constitutional interpretation should be based on what the Constitution actually says. The central function of the Constitution is to serve as a buffer against vicissitudinous political opinion&#8212a function that directly conflicts with the constitutional origami of leftist judges.

That’s not a difficult point to make. But rather than proudly defending that point when, for example, a nominee like John Roberts comes under fire for his Federalist Society membership, Republican leaders instead downplayed his involvement.

Here’s some perspective on just how cowed are conservatism’s Republican representatives: Consider that those who oppose abortion in all circumstances (21% according to this 2005 Harris poll) outnumber U.S residents who are black (13%), hispanic (14%), or liberal (18%). They are statistically tied, with the 23% who would allow abortion in all circumstances. Consider that abortion is consistently one of the single most important issues among Republican voters. And consider that majorities of both conservative and liberal constitutional scholars believe that Roe v. Wade was a horribly reasoned case.

And yet, while Democratic senators candidly make support for Roe the sine qua non of judicial mainstreamism, Bork-wary Republicans scrape and scrounge for nominees who are closet-conservatives at best. Despite controlling Congress and the Presidency for several years Republicans have failed to end partial-birth abortion&#8212which is opposed by a huge majority of Americans. Nor have they seriously made the case for blaming their failure on Roe or linked it to Democratic obstruction of judicial confirmations.

So when will conservatism have won in America? When a Republican president unashamedly nominates Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the ultra-conservative American Center for Law and Justice, to the Supreme Court. I’m not joking. And the fact that you think I’m joking shows how firmly the left still controls political debate in America.

Sekulow has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court bench. He’s been named one of National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers" and one of The American Lawyer’s top 45 public-sector lawyers. His post-academic credentials are nearly as impressive as those of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the last Democratic nominee to the court, and the justice who is most nearly Sekulow’s polar opposite.

Ginsberg, confirmed with a 96-3 Senate vote, was a director of and general counsel for the ACLU before becoming a Federal judge. National Review‘s Edward Whelan summarized Ginsburg’s pre-confirmation opinions thusly:

Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.

Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.

And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.

Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.

The hypothetical nominee I have just described is, in every particular except his sex, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993.

When a Republican president nominates a judge who is as open and unabashedly conservative (or even libertarian) as Ginsburg is liberal, with virtual certainty of his confirmation, we’ll know conservatism controls the battlefield of political debate. But for now our elected leaders are still afraid to join the fray.

Read more commentary at Bilges…

ed/Pub:NB

Powered by

About Ashley Tate

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’m all for a strict constitutionalist as a nominee. How can it be anything but a good idea? Of course a strict constitutionalist isn’t actually likely to strike down Roe v. Wade for any of a number of reasons.

    Dave

  • tony

    Since Bush talks to God, maybe he knows if all the current natural disasters and tragedies indicate the begining of the end of the earth. Our President does not appear to worry what damage the incompetent cronies he places into positions of responsibility will inflict on our country. I think he has informed his base with the appointment of Harriet Miers, that Armageddon is coming

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Tony, perhaps you meant to post your comment to the thread about hurricanes and the End Times?

    I really don’t think nomination of Meirs (or Sekulow) to the SCOTUS qualifies as an omen of the Apocalypse…

  • http://bilges.blogspot.com Ashley Tate

    Tony, I can tell by your comment about Bush talking to God that you missed my last Blogcritics post! Catch up!

  • Anna

    I could not agree more about Jay Seculow for SCOTUS. I say Associate Justice Seculow all the way.

    I would probably faint if it happened though. These Republicans have the weakest backbone I have ever seen. The only time they get a little steel in their spine is when it is reinforced with artillery.

    Great Blog BTW.