Barbara Boxer, not one to often be confused with the intellectual equal of a turnip, continues to step in it with total abandon.
At approximately 11:00 AM (EDT) she was being interviewed on the Fox News Channel concerning the nomination of Samuel Alito to the position of Associate Justice. Her objection to the nominee on general principles is understandable. After all, he was nominated by the Anti-, I mean, Bush. Fair enough, Democrats have the right to object. However, Senator Boxer attempted to ennoble her objection and raise it above mere politics to the status of Constitutional Philosophy. All she succeeded in accomplishing was to call into question her qualifications to evaluate and vote on any nominee to that position.
In response to the anchor's question, Boxer explained, "What you must understand is that this is the Sandra Day O'Connor seat. It is not just the Rehnquist seat or the Scalia seat it is the O'Connor seat." And she went on.
Senator Boxer, perhaps it is you who is in need of a bit of understanding. There is no O'Connor seat on the Supreme Court. There is no Rehnquist seat. There is no Scalia, Marshall, Ginsberg or Thomas seat. The constitution does not apportion seats on the court by party affiliation or ideology. The power to nominate is accorded to the Executive branch, and the power to confirm to the Legislative branch. (That is the branch you serve in, just in case your constitutional comprehension is cloudy in other areas as well.) Voters know when they enter the booth that those people they place in the White House and the Capitol to represent and enact their interests will quite possibly be called upon to determine future members of the Court. It could be readily argued that those who lack this fundamental understanding of the ramifications of their ballot should not be casting one in the first place. Any reasonable person would conclude that placing a person into office because that candidate shares their views and goals will result in the appointment of individuals who share those same general views. Those who voted for President Bush did not do so because the felt Senator Kerry more accurately reflected their ambitions and would carry them out. Since the Democratic party seems incapable of grasping the meaning of losing an election though, beating that dead Donkey further would just be an exercise in futility.
In an ideal world, political considerations and personal world view would have no bearing upon who sits on the Supreme Court. Or any lower court for that matter. Jurists would render decisions based on the Constitution as it exists and on the laws as they are written, not as a few vocal individuals with a platform to speak from would have them be.
There is a mechanism already in place for making the Constitution conform to how we think it and the world at large should be. That is called amendment. Women couldn't vote, because the Constitution specifically accorded that privilege to men. It wasn't up to a judge to find that the Constitution should allow women to vote so they can anyway. Instead, it was up to legislators and the nation at large to determine that the Constitution as it existed was not sufficient to the world we as a nation now wanted it to be. Of course it's more difficult to change the constitution than it is to get the agreement of a handful of judges. That's the way it should be. No legal system can endure if its foundation is little more than the political fad of the moment. If a change is truly warranted, there are enough reasonable citizens in this country to recognize that need and enact that change. It has happened before, and when the need truly arises in the future will happen again.
And when it does, it will not be because one party or another is ascendant at the moment. It will be because an idea that transcends party has been recognized and preserved for the benefit of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment