The Unconstitutional Litmus Test

Has BegunÖ

Written by JB Williams



Who said this? "We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which are either before the court or very likely to appear before the court."


Though it sounds a lot like what Senator Orrin Hatch said in his opening comments in the Judge John Roberts confirmation hearings yesterday, it is actually a statement by Senator Ted Kennedy. Of course he didnít say it yesterday regarding a judicial nominee that threatens to actually uphold the Constitution as it was written. He said it in 1967 to Thurgood Marshall.


Teddyís comments for Judge Roberts yesterday were, shall we say, somewhat different. "Judges are appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and it is our duty to ask questions on great issues that matter to the American people and speak for them.  Judge Roberts, I hope you will respond fully and candidly to such questions, not just to earn our approval, but to prove to the American people that you have earned the right to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land."


Iím sure no one is shocked by the double standard displayed by democrats. Democrats and double standards are almost synonymous these days. The same people, who defended ACLU Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsbergís right to withhold her personal views on abortion, now demand to know how Roberts might rule on the same issue.


But the double standard we have come to expect from the left is not the real offense in this circus called a hearing. The real offense is the clear violation of trust and dereliction of the most important duty of every elected official in America. Every oath of office is built around a single premise, to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution above all else. Our entire system of self-governance, our entire American way of life, is built upon that cornerstone. Without it, we will only be a free nation by way of our second amendment rights.


What does it mean to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? Some believe the Constitution is a living breathing document, able to be changed at the drop of a hat to suit their personal agendas. If that is true, why did the framers make amending the Constitution so difficult? Would the framers have worked so hard to make amending the Constitution an overtly cumbersome process if they had intended for it to be changed by a single judge on the basis of a single case with a single set of circumstances? I doubt itÖ


Our first founding document declared our independence as a free self-governed sovereign nation in 1776. It took from 1777 to 1781 to ratify our first Constitution, The Articles of Confederation, until 1788 to ratify our current Constitution, and another three years to adopt the first ten amendments, later known as the Bill of Rights in 1791. The founders worked on our Constitution for fifteen years, for what? To create a living breathing document? Or to take great care, and set in stone, the foundation upon which America would become the greatest nation on earth?


What did they mean by preserve, protect and defend the language they had so diligently crafted? They did mean preserve, protect and defend the language right? Not just the paper it was written on - without the language, itís just another piece of paper.


Judge John Roberts seems to have the right view on all of this. He seems to have the kind of reverence for this language that the founders intended. He seems a kind and gentle intelligent man of great character, but he makes no bones that his loyalty is to the Constitution and the written law, not to one political ideology or another. And that my friends, is exactly what todayís democrats donít like about him.


Senator Ted Kennedy brazenly opened with ďUnfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there are real and serious reasons to be deeply concerned about Judge Roberts' record. Many of his past statements and writings raise questions about his commitment to equal opportunity and the bipartisan remedies we have adopted in the past."


If you are a left-winger, you probably missed the not so subtle message in this statement. Senator Kennedy is not interested in Roberts preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution. He is only interested in Roberts upholding the bipartisan remedies adopted by activist judges in the past.


"For me, one of the most important issues that needs to be addressed by Judge Roberts is the constitutional right to privacy. ... It would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I knew would overturn Roe v. Wade" Senator Dianne Feinstein D-California is even more overt in her decree that Roberts can only gain her support by upholding specific case-law of special interest to her.


Chucky Schumer probably had the most quotable opening statement of all, "To me the pivotal question, which will determine my vote is this: Are you within the mainstream _ albeit the conservative mainstream _ or are you an ideologue who will seek to use the court to impose your views upon us?" Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. If Chuckyís ideals were mainstream, he wouldnít need an activist court to advance an agenda that could never pass any legitimate legislative process.


Do these statements sound like people committed to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution? Or do they sound more like ideologues concerned only with promoting, preserving and defending their own political agenda, even at the expense of the Constitution?


Hereís where the rubber meets the road. We have watched our elected officials in Washington whittle away at our freedoms and liberties for decades. We have watched democrat after democrat as they pursued their political ambitions and ideologies, without any concern for the written Constitution. We have watched as they undermine everything the Constitution stands for, by way of judicial fiat. And now we watch as they apply their ideological litmus test to a well qualified honorable man.


Is this how one preserves, protects and defends the Constitution? Is your desire to dispose of your offspring, or redefine the time honored sanctity of marriage, or practice the reverse discrimination of affirmative action, or remove God from public discourse, more important than preserving, protecting and defending the founding principles of the greatest nation on earth?



If it is, Iím afraid you are not much of an American and neither are those who hope to prosper politically by applying this litmus test on your behalf.


There is one fact you canít run from - If these ideas, your agenda, were truly mainstream, they would have the support of the American people and their legislature. Your agenda would not be completely dependent upon activist judges instead of the legitimate legislative process. If you want to change the Constitution, the founders provided a means by which to do so and it isnít via judicial fiat.


It isnít Judge John Roberts who is on trial in these hearings. It is you and those who represent you. It is your desire to liberally interpret rights that donít exist, at odds with preserving, protecting and defending the rights of all, which is on trial today.


Roberts will be confirmed. But in the process, the dereliction of duty of Teddy Kennedy and seven other democrats on the judiciary committee will also be confirmed.


America is watching. What they will see is yet another display of how democrats can not be trusted with the most fundamental duties of elected office. If an elected official is not willing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, then they have no value to America at all.

Also on American Daily