onward christian soldiers… »
« the war on relativism, scientism, and historicism…
a rite of spring…

Posted on Saturday 16 May 2009


Conservatives Map Strategies on Court Fight
New York Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
May 16, 2009

If President Obama nominates Judge Diane P. Wood to the Supreme Court, conservatives plan to attack her as an “outspoken” supporter of “abortion, including partial-birth abortion.”

If he nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they plan to accuse her of being “willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.”

And if he nominates Kathleen M. Sullivan, a law professor at Stanford, they plan to denounce her as a “prominent supporter of homosexual marriage.”

Preparing to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Obama’s eventual choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring, conservative groups are working together to stockpile ammunition. Ten memorandums summarizing their research, obtained by The New York Times, provide a window onto how they hope to frame the coming debate.

The memorandums dissect possible nominees’ records, noting statements the groups find objectionable on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, the separation of church and state and the propriety of citing foreign law in interpreting the Constitution.

While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama’s choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats.

“It’s an immense opportunity to build the conservative movement and identify the troops out there,” said Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative fund-raiser. “It’s a massive teaching moment for America. We’ve got the packages written. We’re waiting right now to put a name in”…
As a child, I didn’t realize the significance of a political reality that was so loud that it almost didn’t need to be spoken. It had a lot of synonyms – segregation, our way of life, our honor, states rights, the south – the list was long, encoded to fit the circumstances. It was the always at hand issue by which to measure any politician’s future. When the Civil Rights Movement began in the late 1950’s, I don’t recall any of us knowing what to make of it at first. It takes a while to really look at something that’s just in the spaces between the molecules. For a lot of us, it took a while to see the thing that it’s now hard to imagine was ever unseen in the first place. I sometimes wonder how long it would’ve taken me to awaken had I not had some help from an already enlightened parent.

Now, Abortion and Same Sex Marriage are in the same category. They don’t really represent something specific for a lot of people. They’ve become buzz-words for some version of "our way of life." I know that there are people who hold very strong beliefs about Abortion, but the terms still strike me as having the same codified meaning that Segregation had in times gone by – convenient troop rallying terms.

I don’t know if it works the other way? Do Democrats have prepared lists of talking points for all potential Supreme Court Judges when there’s a Republican President? Are there buzz-words like Abortion and Same Sex Marriage? Do Democrats maybe even use the same buzz-words themselves? Is it "a massive teaching moment for America?" Did we "hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by … electoral defeats"? I wouldn’t doubt it…

And so to the Supreme Court nominations. One wonders if there were ever a time when such things were judged on the merits or the wisdom of the person being considered, independent of the contemporary galvanizing buzz-words. The Congressional Research Service has prepared a nice document for us to look at to see the reasons for rejecting a Presidential nomination called Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2007. and the Senate publishes all the nominations in Supreme Court Nominations (1789-present). It was interesting to read through them all. My conclusion? It’s a good thing we have two political parties who go back and forth in choosing Supreme Court Justices. It’s a partisan show. While there are some famous exceptions, they mostly vote along the lines of their appointing President in perpetuity, and they’re mostly confirmed if they are competent people with a decent record. In my lifetime, twenty-nine have been confirmed with only two "surprises" – Warren and Suitor. Two have withdrawn [Fortas and Miers], and three have been rejected [Carswell, Haynsworth, and Bork]. In many ways, the Court represents a "lag" in the political tenor of the times. As such, it dampens the passions of any given political moment. I suppose that’s a "checks and balances" thing. And as to the nomination being a "teachable moment?" Not likely. It’s more like a Rite of Spring…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.