Sunday, July 03, 2005

Does Fairness Trump Constitutionality?

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board comes up with another stinker of an opinion piece, this time on the subject of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement. There's plenty to rip to shreds here. Away we go:

Now is the time George Bush should start thinking about his legacy. Sure, he won two terms and got the nation through the dark days after 9/11, but then he dragged the country into an unpopular war in Iraq and plunged the federal budget back into years of deficit spending.
Legacy? GWB isn't the kind of President who thinks about his legacy. His father thought about a legacy. Bill Clinton thought about a legacy. GWB is not an opinion poll President. He certainly doesn't care about opinion polls after he is out of office.

Read the second sentence carefully. It sounds like the PG editors think that "he dragged the country into an unpopular war in Iraq" after winning his second term office. Either they are stupid, or the editors need editors. Or they think you are stupid and want to start a new lie and repeat it until they and you believe it. As for the popularity of the war, go back and revisit the 2004 election. The Iraq war was the most divisive issue of the campaign. Who won? Bush did, of course -- despite what a lot of lefty conspiracy theory maniacs want to believe.

It's a fine mess the United States is in. Now he has the chance to do what many presidents only dream about -- remake the face of the Supreme Court. Our advice to Mr. Bush: Don't blow it.
I'm sure he will take this advice to heart. The President is deeply concerned about the opinions of a bunch of commies writing for a newspaper in a decaying city in a "blue" state.
With the retirement announcement Friday of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and a vacancy that will come sooner or later from ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist, President Bush and the forces that put him in power will have the ability to replace almost a fourth of the court. By installing young nominees who could serve into their 70s or 80s, the administration could leave its imprint on the nation's jurisprudence for a generation.
"The forces that put him into power"? Do you mean the American voting public? Or the electoral college? How about Skull and Bones? Maybe even Darth Rove and Grand Moff Cheney? Or...could it be...SATAN??? Please be specific. What forces are you talking about?

That's a scary thought to the half of the voters who, twice, did not favor George W. Bush. But it's an opportunity for a president, who ultimately may not fare well in the history books, to act on principle instead of politics. That will take some doing.
Oooh, scary!! Run and hide, the monster's going to get you! What is with these people and the word "scary"? Or "chilling", for that matter, the Left's other favorite adjective for Republicans. Butthead once said to Beavis, "There's only one thing cooler than guys who get all the chicks, and that's guys who scare chicks". Replace both instances of the word "chicks" with "popular support in the mass media", and you know exactly how I feel about leftist scaremongering.

And if I may repeat myself, George W. Bush is not an opinion poll President. He does act on principle rather than politics. "Principle", to the PG editors, is a euphemism for "the left-wing view". "Politics" means "disagreeing with us". If I could stomach several weeks of these editorials in one reading, I could come up with a translation guide to PG-speak.
It will mean resisting the notion and the pressure to pack the court with conservatives. It will mean naming justices who are better known for their wisdom and knowledge of the law than their political pedigree.
If the President proceeds as he should, he will not try to "pack the court with conservatives". He will select justices who will not only swear to abide by the US Constitution, but who will actually do it. The second sentence in that paragraph makes it sound like the President is going to appoint someone like Jeb Bush. Or himself. And that would be SCARY.
In the case of Chief Justice Rehnquist, few would expect the White House to replace, when the day comes, a conservative with anything but a conservative. But Justice O'Connor, who also considered herself a conservative, was nonetheless a frequent swing vote on major decisions -- which kept the court on a moderate course.
Here we get to the point of the editorial. Apparently the court has "balance", with a conservative here and a moderate there. There is a "black" seat and there is a "Jewish" seat. I am sure that there are quota yet undreamt of that would make the PG giddy. Each retiring justice needs to be replaced by someone like him or her. Well, let's see if we can't drum up support for cloning research. If we can perfect cloning technology, we could replace Scalia with Scalia, Souter with Souter, Breyer with Breyer, and so on. Maybe even do it domestically instead of outsourcing to Kamino like they did in Star Wars.

I like the idea of cloning Supreme Court Justices. Let's take Clarence Thomas -- a well-know strict constructionist -- and make eight clones. The most perfect Supreme Court in history! And I would love to see the PG moan about the lack of balance on an all-black court.
The court needs more Sandra Day O'Connors. She was a justice willing to put aside the past and the expectations of politicians in favor of the right decision, as she read the law and the Constitution. Her 24 years of service to the country, as a centrist in a time of division, are worth celebrating this Independence Day.
Excuse me while I go puke. What does being a "centrist in a time of division" have to do with Independence Day? 1776 was a time of division. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were not centrists. Loyalists to the British crown were not centrists. Where were the centrists then? In eastern Ohio, to give one example. What exactly are we supposed to be celebrating here? The Fourth of July is not National Fencesitting Day.
President Bush would do the nation and his legacy a big favor by appointing someone just like her.
Pittsburghers would do the city and my digestive tract a big favor by canceling their subscriptions to newspapers like this one.

No comments: