LA Times Still Doesn't Get It  

Monday, June 27, 2005

You gotta love the LA times.

Why bother reading things they put on their website when you have guys like David Savage and Richard Schmitt putting crap like this out there?

They get you going by presenting stuff that sounds pretty reasonable, I suppose to build credibility. They even predict that "the kind of conservative the president selects could determine whether there is an epic, summerlong fight over the Supreme Court." This statement is absolutely true and unbiased. It does not imply that the President would be provoking any such fight, just that one would likely exist if he made certain choice(s).

They go on to talk about various judges who would easily carry cloture and confirmation votes - fair enough. But then comes the sucker-punch lie aimed at trying to make people think like they do:

But if the president chooses to set off a big fight, he may name a judge who has shown a more hard-edged ideology and a determination to push the law to the right. That could include Judge J. Michael Luttig, 51, an appellate judge in Virginia, or Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas - whom Bush has called his favorite justices.

This statement is quite provocative. It implies that Judges Scalia and Thomas are activist judges trying to push some kind of hard-right agenda. Why bother reading any further when that kind of crap is being put out there? I honestly don't know much about Luttig, but given that he's been tossed into a negative limelight with other judges whose only issue is that they follow the Cosntitution, I imagine he'd be a pretty good choice as well.

Will someone please show me how staying true to the Constitution and the intent of the Founders equates with a "hard-edged ideology" OR a "determination to push the law to the right"? The only way this could be true is to acknowledge that the Constitution is not being followed at this time. Any liberals out there care to make that admission? I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

My money is on Justice Thomas. He has been clear in every word of every opinion, strongly supporting positions that would have been taken by most of the Founders. He does exactly what his job is - he interprets the law, and he doesn't try to write laws from the bench. Quite Frankly, a Chief Justice Thomas would be a breath of fresh air. I believe the Founding Fathers would be apalled if they saw what the courts and the Left were up to today.

Appalled that Americans have largely accepted the erosion of our freedoms over the last one hundred years. When Ben Franklin was asked about the outcome of the Constitutional Conventions in 1787, his reply was, "A republic ... IF you can keep it." It is becoming ever clearer that Americans are doing an embarrassing job of keeping the republic. Of course, that's another post.

Please do think about it, though, and read up on the subject. You may be surprised at what you learn. Don't waste your time with the LA Times.


Update: John Hawkins on Constitutionalist judges.

Update 6/28: Matt Margolis on the consequences of bad court decisions.