From CQ reader Kate Nguyen:

"I believe that a woman's right to choose is a constitutional right," Mr. Kerry said in May. "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo that right." This litmus test really means Mr. Kerry wants justices who embrace the two unstated premises of Roe vs. Wade: The Supreme Court can act as a national legislature that can never be vetoed, and when it does it must advance the liberal agenda.

Elect Mr. Kerry and that liberal agenda will keep advancing not only for the next four years, and not only when it can muster a narrow majority on a divided court, but for as long as the justices Mr. Kerry appoints serve out their lifelong terms.

To me this is very scary. Not just on "Roe vs. Wade" but what a "liberal" Supreme Court will do to our society on many issues that we are facing today. We need a balance Court that will interpret the law based on our constitution but also will take into consideration of the voice of the majority.

In Friday's Washington Times, Terence P. Jeffrey predicted that several justices could retire during the next administration:

Justice John Paul Stevens, a liberal appointed by President Ford, is 84. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative first appointed by President Nixon and then elevated to chief justice by President Reagan, just turned 80. Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee who often votes with the liberals, is 74. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee who anchors the court's left, is 71. At 56, Clarence Thomas, a conservative, is the only justice under 65.

If Mr. Jeffrey is right, the next president will have the opportunity to reshape the court for an entire generation. And if this isn't frightening enough, here is his response to Friday night's question on this topic:

Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.

I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.

Not a liberal judge, not a conservative judge, not male nor female . . . .

The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected? These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, he reveals his intent to appoint activists judges! Instead of appointing judges who will interpret the law according to the Constitution, as it should be done, he will find those judges willing to make the law and then apply it to the Constitution!

I agree with Kate that the senator’s criteria for judicial appointees presents a grave threat to our legal system. The Supreme Court has already gone to absurd lengths to make new law, so one can scarcely imagine the horror should a president appoint judges with the express understanding that they can and will re-write the Constitution.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is