Judicial Nominations Vital For 2008

Priority No. 1 for the next president is keeping America safe in the War on Terror. President Bush has a pretty clean record in the "Number of Attacks on American Soil Since 9/11" statistical category, and the Forty-Fourth president will have big shoes to fill.

Provided that America does not succumb to militant Islam, the second greatest priority will be preserving society as we know it via responsible judicial appointments. It is vital to the Conservative movement that judges be appointed to the Supreme Court and other pivotal court positions that strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution. Looking to international law and/or treating the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document will not do.

A look at the court as it now stands:

Conservatives now hold several seats that seem to be untouchable for the next generation. Chief Justice John Roberts is 52 years old, and provided that he doesn't do a complete U-turn, he'll be a reliable voice for the Founding Fathers for years to come. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., is in a similar position. At 57 years of age, Conservatives can look forward to 15-25+ years of solid constructionist ruling from his seat. Clarence Thomas is only slightly Alito's senior at 59 years, making Antonin Scalia, 71, the "old man" of the core Conservatives on the court.

Consider what the court would look like should Clinton or Obama have a crack at a nomination or two.

Conservatives have reason to be optimistic about another four to eight years of Republican presidential power as the Liberal justices have been collecting Social Security for quite some time. John Paul Stevens, Gerald Ford's worst mistake, is 87 years old. Anthony Kennedy, the pox of Reagan's administration, is 71 years of age. David Souter, a worse gift than new taxes from George H.W. Bush, is 69. The Clinton Justices are no spring chickens, either. Ruth Ginsberg is 74 years old, and Stephen Breyer is 69.

The next president will arguably make at least 2, perhaps 3 or more Supreme Court nominations, likely to replace at least two very liberal Justices. It is of paramount importance that a Republican be in the White House to make the necessary nominations.

Perhaps the Republican losses of 2006 will give the general public the opportunity to see how the Liberal, left-wing Democrats govern, and give them an opportunity to reverse course in 2008. A blessing in disguise if things work out like so. On the other hand, consider what the court would look like should Clinton or Obama have a crack at a nomination or two. While they'll likely be replacing the left side of the court, making little change in court decisions by today's standards, they will be replacing 70 and 80 year old Justices with 50 year old Justices setting the Court back 2 generations. Need I go further?

Let's now consider the current candidates and the types of Justices they might nominate.

Is there any doubt Newt would nominate a Justice with a philosophy in the mold of John Adams or James Madison? Newt is a known commodity. There will be no surprises, only complete satisfaction with a Newt presidency for Conservatives.

The long-shots, such as Hunter, Tancredo & Brownback would similarly nominate strict constructionists. Can any of them get elected, though?

While Rudy is no Conservative, and his social record is suspect in many Conservatives’ minds, he has not dodged Conservatives in his effort to demonstrate his intent to nominate Justices that will accurately interpret the Constitution. Furthermore, he has made it known that Theodore Olson will chair his Judicial Advisor Committee. Rudy may not be a Conservative, but Ted Olson certainly is.

With regard to McCain, is anyone sure on which side of a particular issue he will fall from week to week? Who will he nominate when the media makes it clear that they'd like the nominee to come from the ACLU ranks?

Mitt has a lot to show XEKE.com in the area of judicial philosophy and nominations.

Too much emphasis cannot be placed on the importance of having sound Justices on the Supreme Court. This cannot be done with a Democrat in the White House, or with the wrong Republican in the Oval Office. Continue to check back with XEKE.com to read the latest in common sense analysis of the issues and candidates.

Autumn 2007