Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Bush to announce court nominee tonight

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the Bush administration was asking television outlets to broadcast the speech live when he speaks at 9 p.m. ET with his nominee by his side.
McClellan said the American people expected that the Senate confirmation process would be a dignified one.(MSNBC)
Uh huh, I'm sure the Democrats will make sure that the nomination process is just full of dignity!

It's too bad, really. But if the liberals in the Judiciary had not politicized themselves by making their decisions based on what is currently politically correct instead of what is legally or morally correct, then the nomination process would not be so political. Surprising but true, they're actually not supposed to be taking into account "the mood of the people" or trying to read into the law what the current political status of a viewpoint is. The nomination process is what it is because of liberals. You won't read that in the Old Press though. They are typically too busy reporting on how the Republicans need to reach out and so on and so forth and not how liberals need to change the way they have been abusing the Judiciary.

As far as the Republicans go, if conservative Republicans cannot get Republican politicians too concerned with the opinion of the Old Press and liberals (e.g. John McCain) to support some of the basic principles they were elected to represent (such as textual limitations on the Judiciary) then they may not get elected next time. What more do they expect besides the Senate, the House and the Presidency, as well as many governorships? Does the Judiciary's play for power have something to do with the election of the only party that may limit them? What does concern over "morality" stand for? I would note that failure is not really the conservative Republicans fault although the principled people get lumped in as "Republicans" with middling moderates and the moderates are not held responsible for their type of passive agressive decisions by the time an election comes around. I think that this specific issue may be different though, people seem to be taking names over this business with the Judiciary. It's important to them, although perhaps it should not be as important as some make it.

As far as the liberal side of things, it's going to be almost passé when liberals go all craaazy over these nominations. Does it really matter that much, as much as they seem to feel it does? Will the abortion industry really go right on out of business, will irresponsible sex suddenly come to a halt, will men in their twenties really have to stop having sex with teenagers and then having them kill their offspring? To listen to progressives you'd think that the entire culture hinges on the decisions of some judges. But no, it will not change by judicial diktat. Abortion is nothing new and has gone on in America for centuries ever since its beginning. The laws making it illegal only came about after a cultural renewal at the roots of a newly cultivated culture, civilization rises and falls in generations and such laws can only last until a wicked and adulterous generation comes along.

The laws are only a culture's symbols, not its substance. I like getting words right or upholding a principle with them as much as the next fellow. But making judges serve the law as an end in itself instead of having the law serve the political will of the judge will not change the nitty gritty substance of the culture, no more than textual degenerates emitting some penumbras to make abortion "legal" prevented teenagers from going to a hotel and trying to perform their own back alley abortion. Didn't abortionists argue that those would disappear because of changes in the law? What about the teen mother who tried to flush her baby down the toilet at her prom as well as others? Didn't they know that the law had been deformed and penumbras emitted to stop such abortions?

It seems that our oligarchs in black robes flatter themselves in thinking that their decisions about what is or is not "constitutional" have some mystical power to define a culture and a nation. They do not have such power, you do.

No comments: