Judicial Nominees

I know we beat this issue over the head a while back, but as with any important issue, the debate never ends.

First off, I was right. Case in point Kelo v. New London and McCreary Count, Kentucky v. ACLU.

If you haven’t been reading the paper, the decision in the first case was that a local government is allowed to take your house and give it to a private company if it wishes. In the second case, the court ruled that the ten commandments can not be displayed in a public setting when the display has a religious significance (as opposed to historical significance). So in two weeks, the 9 tyrants in robes struck a horrible blow to both property rights and religion. This is why it is imperative that Bush appoints strict constructionist judges to replace O’Connor and Rehnquist when he retires.

And how did it get this bad…I’ll tell you. First, when Reagan tried to appoint Robert Bork, the Dems went on the war path and subsequently the verb “to Bork” was born. So, although he did get Scalia on the bench, he eventually settled on Kennedy who ended up siding on the anti-private property side of the Kelo case.

Then you have H.W. Bush’s nominee–Souter. Souter was th one who read the ridiculous majority opinion in the Kentucky case (I was in the chambers when he read it). He claimed that this guy was a secularist


We can not allow the Left to convince Bush to appoint a “moderate.” There is no moderation when it comes to believing in the constitution. “Moderate” means adhering to the constitution sometimes and your whim the rest of the time.

The Republicans need to do whatever is necessary within the bounds of the law to pass strict constructionist nominees. Let’s see what happens.

Here is a guy who believed in sticking to his guns, no matter what. Thank goodness he wasn’t worried about polling numbers.

Leave a Reply